Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SYRIA AND LEBANON (CONSTITUTIONS)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding constitutional progress in Syria and the Lebanon?

The Minister of State (Mr. Richard Law): Yes, Sir. Elections have been held both in Syria and Lebanon during the summer, and popularly elected Legislatures are now in existence in both countries. Presidents and Governments have been appointed in the constitutional manner. I am glad to say that these developments, which have been followed with close sympathy and interest by His Majesty's Government, have been well received by surrounding Arab peoples, and exchanges of diplomatic and consular representatives are in progress.

Mr. Astor: Have these Governments now full treaty-making powers?

Mr. Law: The position is that it is technically impossible now to terminate the mandate, but the French authorities are in touch with the Lebanon and Syrian authorities with a view to implementing the pledges which have been given.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY (PRE-WAR RELATIONS)

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of publishing a Blue Book containing diplomatic documents dealing with relations with Germany before 22nd August, 1939, in view of the fact that information with regard to this period is now only accessible in publications by foreign Governments?

Mr. Law: I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) on 13th October.

Mr. Mander: Is it not rather an unsatisfactory position that we should be dependent upon the publications of a foreign Government dealing with these events, and could we not have one of our own?

Mr. Law: We certainly shall have one of our own in due course, but this question raises issues of very considerable importance, and they have to be considered very carefully.

Mr. McGovern: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the number of statements that have been made in the various countries, he could not consider publishing the whole of the documents in relation to this matter, because there are many suspicions regarding the intentions of the various Governments?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, it is being considered.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what happened after the last war, when public opinion towards Germany was coloured by the fact that information came mainly from German sources?

Oral Answers to Questions — OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (CONTROLLED RELIEF)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States Government are in complete agreement with the present British policy of refusing all requests for further measures of controlled relief in occupied territory; and, if not, what extensions of relief do they favour?

Mr. Law: The answer to the first part of the Question is: "Yes, Sir." The second part of the Question accordingly does not arise.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable body of opinion in America which favours the increased control of relief, and if representations are made to that effect what attitude are His Majesty's Government going to take?

Mr. Law: The hon. Member asked me about the attitude of the United States Government, and I have answered him on that point.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the second United Nations Food Conference, to be held at the Hot Springs in the near future, will consider questions of immediate controlled relief as distinct from post-invasion relief and rehabilitation; and whether the British Government's policy will be determined in accordance with the recommendations of that conference or whether the present refusal of navicerts for milk and vitamins for Belgium is to be taken as final?

Mr. Law: No second United Nations Food Conference is in contemplation. The hon. Member may, however, have in mind the conference which will be held next month in the United States for the purposes of setting up the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. The draft agreement setting up this body looks to the provision of relief in the period following the liberation of any area and does not relate to relief through the blockade. As regards the last part of the Question, no change in the declared policy of His Majesty's Government is contemplated.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the statement made by the Minister of Food last Saturday, that the whole of the human race is marching towards universal famine, and will he see that our delegates at the next Food Conference in America will not make glowing promises to provide food that they all know will not be there to give?

Mr. Law: I do not think our delegates in America ever made glowing promises of food. At the recent Hot Springs Conference the United Kingdom delegation went out of its way to make the point that there would be an acute shortage after the war, whatever we did.

Mr. Leach: Will the Minister take into consideration, in view of the present distressed condition of Germany, the taking of food into the whole of occupied Europe?

Mr. Stokes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare under which International Convention the Axis is responsible for making good deficiencies in the food supply of the

civilian population of occupied countries even where such shortages are caused by our blockade?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): The legal obligations of occupying authorities are governed by articles 42–56 of Hague Convention No. IV concerning the laws and customs of war on land, drawn up at the Conference of 1907. Article 47 formally prohibits pillaging, while Article 52 states that requisitions in kind cannot be demanded except for the necessities of the armies of occupation, and that they must be in proportion to the resources of the country. These obligations which have been wholly ignored by the Axis, are not affected by the circumstance that the other belligerents are preventing supplies reaching the occupied territories in question. In their administration of the occupied countries the German and other Axis Governments have in a number of ways exceeded the rights permitted by the Hague Convention to military occupants. They have imposed the closest and most detailed control over every department of their national life, and have exploited the resources of these countries in every way for their own war effort. It follows that they should assume corresponding obligations and see that adequate provision is made for the peoples concerned.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has not really answered my Question at all but has answered another one? Is he further aware that 70 per cent. of the foodstuffs going to Belgium and 60 per cent. going to Greece prior to the war came from outside the blockade area, and will he explain whether it is the responsibility of the occupying Power to replace that quantity?

Mr. Foot: I have already stated what the legal responsibilities of the occupying Power are under international law and in the circumstances which now prevail in Europe. With regard to the earlier part of the hon. Member's Supplementary Question, I cannot accept the accuracy of his figures.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that these figures are given by the Governments of the countries concerned? In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE (SUBORDINATE GRADES)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to improve the pay and prospects of the registry clerks, shorthand-typists and other members of the subordinate grades employed in the Foreign Office?

Mr. Law: My right hon. Friend fully appreciates the need for improving the conditions of service for the members of the subordinate grades of the Foreign Office. He is also impressed, as the recent White Paper made clear, by the need for ensuring that these essential subordinate services, which at present belong to the Home Civil Service, shall in future form part of the new Foreign Service. My right hon. Friend has therefore drawn up a plan for including established employees of the subordinate ranks of the Foreign Office in the new Foreign Service, with the obligation to serve abroad when required, and with prospects of a good career and improved pay consequential on this obligation. These proposals are now under discussion with the Treasury.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Sir Harold Webbe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what control His Majesty's Government exercise over the expenditure of the League of Nations?

Mr. Law: In normal times control over the expenditure of the League of Nations is exercised through the Assembly, advised by the Supervisory Commission, the accounts being audited by an independent auditor. During the war period when the Assembly has not been meeting, it has delegated its functions to the Supervisory Commission, which has exercised a vigilant control over the expenditure of all organs of the League. The Supervisory Commission now includes three persons drawn from the British Commonwealth. Until his recent death it also included Sir F. Phillips, a member of His Majesty's Treasury.

Sir H. Webbe: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that, through this representation of the Supervisory Commission, the expenditure of the money largely provided by His Majesty's Government is in fact on a proper basis and that there is no undue waste?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, I am fully satisfied of that.

Mr. McGovern: Would it not be better to wind up this bogus and bankrupt concern?

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether those States which have defaulted on their contributions to the League of Nations are still considered to be members; and how long a State is entitled to be considered a member after default?

Mr. Law: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. No time limit for the payment of arrears has been established.

Major Petherick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proportion the annual contribution of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the upkeep of the League of Nations bears to the total contributions now being paid; and what proportion is paid by the British Empire as a whole?

Mr. Law: On the basis of contributions paid in the year 1942, the proportion paid by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is 29.57 per cent. of the League's income and by the British Commonwealth and Empire 61.59 per cent.

Major Petherick: Is it not obvious that the League of Nations is now run predominantly by the British Empire, and has it not therefore ceased to be a League of Nations as it was originally contemplated, and is it not time that the whole thing was wound up?

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the cause of all these questions? Do I take it that hon. Gentlemen opposite are against all co-operation with other nations?

Mr. Mander: Is it not sufficient for hon. Members to have murdered the League without continually stirring up trouble?

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will my right hon. Friend do everything he possibly can to prevent semi-official bodies who have taken the name of the League of Nations from doing irreparable injury to this country as they did before the war?

Mr. Law: That is another question, and, with regard to the main question, it has been made clear that His Majesty's Government attach very great importance to those sections of the League which are now in existence and in active operation.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: May I ask whether these questions denote a difference of opinion between the Chairman of the Tory Party and the members of the Tory Party?

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY

British Prisoners of War

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what clauses were included in the Italian armistice terms to insist upon and facilitate the opportunity for escape of British prisoners of war known to be in camps within reach of German armed forces;
(2) whether he is aware that the commandant of the Bologna prisoner of war camp deliberately procrastinated in opening the gates and prevaricated with the senior British officer, with the result that the ultimate facilities for escape were useless in the face of German armed force; and whether he will have this Italian officer's name ascertained and noted?

Mr. Law: Article 3 of the Armistice with Italy signed on 3rd September, reads as follows:
All prisoners or internees of the United Nations to be immediately turned over to the Allied Commander-in-Chief, and none of these may now or at any time be evacuated to Germany.
As regards the prisoners of war camp at Bologna, information in my possession confirms that there was undue delay in opening the gates of this camp. I am taking steps to ascertain the name of the camp commandant.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of the failure on the part of the Italian officials, a very large number of British prisoners of war have been transferred to Germany, and can he hold out any hopes that some redress can be obtained?

Mr. Law: As I say, we are trying to ascertain the name of the camp commandant, who must have been acting contrary to the instructions of his Govern-

ment, and I hope that in due course appropriate steps will be taken against him.

Mr. Bowles: Will His Majesty's Government publish, the full terms of the armistice, so that we may know all the details?

Mr. Law: That is another question.

Mr. Keeling: Has my right hon. Friend any information that other prison camp commandants behaved in a similar way?

Mr. Law: No, Sir.

Armistice Terms

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can yet state the general, political and economic terms of the armistice signed between Great Britain and Italy?

Mr. Law: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on this subject on 20th October.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department considered that this House is entitled to know all the terms, so that we can understand exactly the Government's policy with regard to the Italian Government?

Mr. Law: I would not withhold anything from this House unless there were very good reasons for doing so, and in this case there are good reasons. Among others, we cannot give the House information without giving the same information to the enemy, and I would ask the House to leave this question in our judgment for the moment, with the assurance that as soon as it is practicable to do so we shall give the fullest information we can.

Mr. Maclean: Could not we have it before the peace treaties?

Mr. McGovern: Could not we have it in Secret Session?

Oral Answers to Questions — STRANDED BRITISH CHILDREN, PORTUGAL

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the plight of a number of unaccompanied British children en route for Great Britain who the now stranded at Estoril in Portugal; and whether he will take steps to assist them?

Mr. Law: I am aware of the difficulties arising from the accumulation in Portugal of British children unable to obtain further transport to the United Kingdom. The situation has undoubtedly led to difficulties, but I must point out that it has arisen largely through the children, and especially unaccompanied children, being sent without any assurances being obtained that the onward passage would be forthcoming. I am, however, consulting with the other Departments concerned, and investigating possibilities of remedying the situation. Every effort is being made to transport in particular the unaccompanied children, and in the meantime arrangements have been made at Lisbon for volunteers from the British community to see to their welfare.

Mr. Hogg: Seeing that it will not be suggested that it is the children's fault, anyhow, will the right hon. Gentleman satisfy himself that they are being properly looked after at the moment?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, that will be done.

Commander Locker-Lampson: How many children are involved?

Mr. Law: I think the number is between 300 and 350.

Mr. Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the plight of a number of unaccompanied British children en route for Great Britain who are now stranded at Estoril in Portugal for want of air transport; and whether he will take steps to provide them with this?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): Yes, Sir, Our resources in both air and sea transport are strained by the urgent requirements of the war, but I will gladly do what I can to help in remedying the situation.

Mr. Hogg: Can the Minister say, without in any way endangering the children or giving away secrets, the type of delay which they may expect?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, but I think I ought to say in all frankness to the hon. Gentleman and the House that it will be serious. As the hon. Member knows, operations are going on in the Mediterranean now, we are making a special effort to carry Christmas mails to the troops, the

weather at this time of the year is very bad, and, with the best will in the world, I am afraid there will be a long delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Court-Martial, Isle of Man

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that a court-martial, sitting recently in the Isle of Man, decided that an officer of the Provost Marshal's Department had obtained a statement from a suspected person otherwise than voluntarily and had also interviewed a W.A.A.F. corporal in a locked room; whether that officer is still employed on the same type of work; and what steps are being taken to avoid such methods in future?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have seen Press reports of this case. As the proceedings of the court-martial are still sub judice, my hon. Friend will appreciate that is not possible for me to make any statement at this stage.

Handkerchiefs

Sir H. Webbe: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether handkerchiefs are issued to officers and men of the Royal Air Force; and, if not, what facilities are provided to enable them to obtain these necessary articles coupon free?

Sir A. Sinclair: Officers receive an allowance of coupons to cover all clothing requirements, including handkerchiefs. Airmen needing handkerchiefs are provided by their commanding officers with certificates which enable them to purchase handkerchiefs without coupons.

Lecture, Blackpool

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that on 6th October in the Winter Gardens, Blackpool, a lecture was given to the R.A.F. and W.A.A.F. by Rosita Forbes, in the course of which disparaging remarks concerning the war effort of our Russian Allies were made, calculated to prejudice the minds of listeners against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and will he call the attention of those lecturing to the Services to the need for promoting harmony and goodwill among the Allied Nations?

Sir A. Sinclair: I should profoundly deplore it if anyone abused an invitation


to lecture to the Royal Air Force by promoting disharmony between this country and our Allies. I am aware that the lecture referred to by the hon. Member has been the subject of criticism, and I have called for a report. As a general rule, lecturers are given guidance of the kind suggested and I will see that in future it is given in every case.

Mr. Burke: Can the Minister say what is the point of making such a statement as that there is nothing clever in the Russians having to lose so many thousands of square miles to the Germans when there is so much of an encouraging character that might be reasonably expected to be stressed? Is there not something sinister in this subtle selection of facts?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have just said that I have not seen a report of the lecture and that I have called for a report upon it. I have condemned in terms which I hope will commend themselves to my hon. Friend statements which are calculated to cause disharmony.

Mr. John Dugdale: If the report is unsatisfactory will this lady's licence to lecture be withdrawn?

Sir A. Sinclair: I must wait and see the report. This lady is not on our list of lecturers.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that complaints have been made against this lady before because of her adverse criticisms of Russia when delivering lectures to the troops?

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Minister see that she does not do it any more?

Bombing (Germany and Great Britain)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air the tonnage of bombs dropped on Germany during the four weeks ended 25th October and the estimated tonnage dropped in England during the same period?

Sir A. Sinclair: During the four weeks ended 25th October, aircraft of Bomber Command dropped over 17,000 tons of bombs on Germany, compared with some 160 tons dropped on this country by the enemy.

Educational Service

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will explain the position of education officers in the R.A.F.; whether they have the same rights as regards separation allowances for their wives and families, disability and widows' pensions, etc., as other R.A.F. officers of corresponding rank; or whether their commissions are honorary and they are without any assured rights other than those of civilians in the above respects?

Sir A. Sinclair: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan) on 21st April. Members of the Royal Air Force Educational Service, whether serving at home or overseas, are employed on a civilian basis. They retain all their rights under the terms of their civilian appointments and accordingly are not entitled to the pay, allowances and pensions of mobilised officers.

Miss Rathbone: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that the present position is very unsatisfactory, especially in regard to education officers who have to go abroad and face risks from the enemy and to their health without adequate protection for the future of their wives and children?

Sir A. Sinclair: I received my hon. Friend's letter and this Question only yesterday, and I am looking into the facts she has put to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR CIVIL AVIATION

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make a statement on the conclusions reached by the conference on civil aviation held under the chairmanship of the Lord Privy Seal?

Sir A. Sinclair: As my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal has stated in another place, the recent Commonwealth Conference on post-war civil air transport was informal and exploratory, and its conclusions are provisional and subject to the approval of the Governments concerned. Unanimous agreement was, however, reached on every issue presented to it, including that of setting up an international air transport authority which would be intimately associated with, and responsible to, any United Nations security organisation which might be established.

Mr. Astor: In view of the fact that such an agreement has been reached, even on a provisional basis, would it be possible for it to be given to the House in a White Paper?

Sir A. Sinclair: Not at this stage, because it is quite confidential until the Governments have made up their minds whether to accept it or not.

Mr. Simmonds: Can the Minister say whether any of the Governments represented at the Conference have yet confirmed the resolutions they have passed?

Sir A. Sinclair: I could not say without notice.

Sir Alfred Beit: Will there be conversations with the United States and other United Nations in the near future?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR TRAFFIC, UNITED KINGDOM AND SWEDEN

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make on the cessation of air traffic between Sweden and the United Kingdom?

Sir A. Sinclair: I regret that it would not be in the public interest to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

Trafford Park Civil Defence Committee (Accounts)

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is aware that the auditor's certificate and letter attached to the accounts of the Trafford Park Civil Defence Executive Committee for the year ending 31st August, 1943, indicated that various expenses borne by occupiers ought to be paid by the Ministry of Aircraft Production; and what action he proposes to take?

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): I am aware of the suggestion made by the auditors that part of the cost of the central management of the Joint Civil Defence scheme on the Trafford Park Estate should be borne either by my Ministry or by some other Government Department. The suggestion related to the cost of compiling the individual

occupiers' accounts under the scheme, and appears to have been founded on a misapprehension since such costs are the responsibility of the occupiers themselves. I propose, therefore, to take no action.

Mr. Etherton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these joint schemes run by his Department are wasteful and expensive and, if they continue to be run by his Department, will he investigate whether it would not be proper that the cost should be borne by the Department and not by individual occupiers?

Sir S. Cripps: No, I am not aware of that. The joint schemes are more efficient from the point of view of fire prevention.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that those who have examined the schemes are satisfied that they merely add to the expense and diminish the efficiency and call for the provision of unnecessary staff at the Ministry for the job?

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that these charges, ultimately though not directly, must be met by the Ministry?

Sir S. Cripps: Ultimately they will be met by the Ministry.

Mr. Etherton: Does not that make it even more unfair for independent firms not under the Ministry?

Factories (Post-War Utilisation)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is aware that both employers and employees in aircraft factories are feeling anxious about their position when hostilities cease, as the break clause in contracts, if put into operation, will mean that large numbers of employees both in the main factories and those of sub-contractors will run the risk of dismissal; and what plans he has in mind to prevent this happening?

Sir S. Cripps: I can assure the hon. Member that the problem to which he refers is being closely and urgently examined as a part of the wider problem of achieving the transition from war-time to a peace-time basis with as little dislocation as possible. The nature of the transition will depend upon the future course of the war and the dates on which it ends in Europe and the Far East respectively. The formulation of detailed


proposals will, of course, depend upon the alternative use to which some aircraft factories may be put and decisions can only be taken as part of a general plan which is now under consideration.

Mr. Lipson: Can we have an assurance that schemes for converting war factories to peace-time work are being considered, and can the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate when some information can be given of a reassuring nature to employers and employees?

Sir S. Cripps: The matter is under consideration in respect of the different factories and the different possibilities of post-war utilisation. When it will reach a stage when something can be said it is impossible now to say.

Temporary Footbridge, Horseferry Road

Sir Austin Hudson: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production why a steel girder footbridge is being constructed across Horseferry Road; what is the cost of it; and whether the owners of the two buildings which it connects are bearing any part of this cost?

Sir S. Cripps: This bridge is a temporary structure to improve communication between two of the buildings housing the headquarters staff of my Department. I am informed that the estimated cost is £1,850; the answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

Contract Prices (Disclosure)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he is aware that in recent proceedings at Bow Street police court the prosecuting counsel disclosed the contract price of the Seafire; whether this was done with his authority; and whether the contract price of other types of aircraft may now be made public?

Sir S. Cripps: I have seen reports in the Press of the statement referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, who will appreciate that counsel was not addressing the court on my behalf. The principle remains that disclosure of contract prices is not in the public interest.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (TELEGRAMS FROM LONDON)

Professor Savory: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will inform

postmasters in the London area that they have no authority to insist on the insertion of the Christian names of the addressee and of the sender in telegrams destined for Northern Ireland, as evidently some of them are under a misapprehension with regard to this matter?

The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): If my hon. Friend will be so good as to supply me with the names of any post offices where he has found misapprehension to exist on this point, I shall be glad of the opportunity to take the necessary action to remove it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CœUR DE LION STATUE (BENT SWORD)

Major Petherick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he will have the sword on the statue of King Richard I, Cœur de Lion, outside St. Stephen's Hall, straightened?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): As many hon. Members may know, the interesting suggestion has been made that the bent but unbroken sword is symbolic and should remain as it is. It is not, however, proposed to carry out permanent repairs to this statue until after the war.

Major Petherick: Though the state of King Richard's sword may have been symbolic three years ago, when we were bent but not broken, is not the symbolism rather effete now, when we are neither broken nor bent?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS (NON-INDUSTRIAL STAFF)

Mr. Butcher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he will give the total number of persons employed by his Department other than operative builders?

Mr. Hicks: The number of non-industrial staff employed by the Ministry on 1st October, 1943, was 14,893.

Mr. Butcher: Will the hon. Gentleman keep these figures constantly under review in view of the reduction of building work that is now going on so that the numbers may be kept to a minimum?

Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir, my Ministry is constantly engaged upon review. The numbers have been substantially increased, however, by the addition of certain staff from the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Ministry of Supply. Moreover, a new Directorate, that of Opencast Coal Production, has been built up within the last six months.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Pharmacists

Mr. Linstead: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps he is taking to prevent a breakdown in the pharmaceutical service of the medical department of the Admiralty which will follow the threatened withdrawal of some 60 pharmacists for military service; and why these men cannot be transferred, as were dentists, from civilian officers to naval officers and so remain in the posts of which they have now specialised experience?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The number of pharmacists in the pharmaceutical department of the Admiralty who were under 25 at the date of their registration and whose deferment therefore became liable to cancellation following a decision on the call up of civil servants is 37 and not 60 as stated by my hon. Friend. The question of the retention of these men in the Admiralty service is, however, at present being reconsidered, and it would, therefore, not be appropriate for me to say anything further at this juncture.

Statutory Rules and Orders

Major Petherick: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reason for Statutory Rules and Orders No. 1179 of 9th August, 1943?

Mr. Alexander: It would not be in the public interest to disclose the reasons for which this Order has been issued.

D.S.M. (Monetary Award)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the question of giving a monetary award to holders of the D.S.M.?

Mr. Alexander: No, Sir; this matter is, however, under consideration, and I will let my hon. Friend know when I am in a position to make a statement.

Sea Cadet Corps

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the respective functions and duties of the Admiralty and the Navy League in regard to the activities of the Sea Cadet Corps; and the existing machinery of co-operation?

Mr. Alexander: The Admiralty is responsible for the organisation and the training of the Sea Cadet Corps. The Navy League administers the Corps on behalf of the Admiralty and looks after the social and welfare side. Co-operation is secured through an Executive Council, consisting of two members each from the Admiralty and the Navy League, which meets regularly under the chairmanship of the Admiralty Director responsible.

Mr. Lindsay: Would the right hon. Gentleman look into this arrangement? Thousands of boys want to join, the preparations at the Scottish camp this year were quite inadequate, and, in spite of the shortage of officers, I think much more might be done. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask one of his three Parliamentary Secretaries to look into the matter?

Mr. Alexander: If the hon. Gentleman will send me any particular case, like the one he has mentioned, I shall be glad to look into it, but I must say in fairness to the Corps that the progress and increased efficiency in the last two years have been remarkable.

Navy League (Government Grants)

Mr. Lindsay: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what measure of control is exercised by his Department over the expenditure by the Navy League of Government funds; and for what purposes are these used?

Mr. Alexander: Grants made to the Navy League from Navy Votes are earmarked for expenditure on the administration and technical training of the Sea Cadet Corps. Expenditure from such grants is accounted for by the Navy League to the Admiralty.

Officers' Wives' Allowance

Miss Rathbone: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the case, of which particulars have been furnished him, where a naval officer who has made no contribution to


the support of his wife since September, 1939, is continuing to draw and to pocket for his own use the wife's allowance appropriate to his rank; and how far this is permitted by Admiralty regulations in the case of commissioned officers and of ratings, respectively?

Mr. Alexander: I have investigated the case to which the hon. Member refers and have ascertained that in fact this officer is paying to his wife, who has charge of the child of the marriage, a far greater sum than he is receiving as marriage and children's allowances. Under the Officer's Marriage Allowance scheme marriage and children's allowances are issuable to an officer who is separated from his wife whom he does not maintain provided he is responsible for the maintenance of his child or children. The position is different in the case of ratings since the marriage allowance is paid direct to the wife.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the money paid by the officer to his wife is paid by order of the court and is the amount appropriate for the support of the child and that a woman would be misappropriating money if she should use it for herself? So the question of the officer retaining the wife's allowance is really irrelevant to the question what he pays his wife for a different purpose.

Mr. Alexander: I have no evidence of any widespread failure on the part of naval officers to meet their commitments, but, surely, if there is some disagreement on the part of the lady in the particular case as to the ruling of the court, she always has the court at her disposal.

Miss Rathbone: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that there is a distinction made in the Admiralty between officers and ratings and that officers are given the power, if they are mean enough to use it, of appropriating to their own use money paid by the taxpayers for the support of their wives, whereas a rating is not so permitted? Does he really justify such a class distinction?

Mr. Alexander: The whole basis of the allowances is different, and it is not possible for me under the Act of 1865 to make any change in the law. But, in fact, we have no evidence of any widespread need to change the law.

Captain Harold Briggs (Promotion)

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Order in Council of 16th July, 1914, providing that service in the R.N.A.S. should count in all respects as service in a ship of war at sea, was cancelled by Order in Council of 24th October, 1916; and, since this alteration was not made adequately known to the officers then serving in the R.N.A.S., if he will reconsider his refusal to promote Captain Harold Briggs to Flag Rank on Retired List, for his services in making efficient the naval air arm which helped to destroy zeppelins and to master the U-boats in the last war?

Mr. Alexander: As the reply is rather long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

I regret I am unable to accept the statement of the hon. and gallant Member that the change made in October, 1916, was not sufficiently promulgated. It was in fact issued as a general Order to the Naval Service in Admiralty Monthly Order No. 3045 of 17th November, 1916. This point is, however, of minor importance since no change was then made which affected the matter now raised. Order in Council of 16th July, 1914, provided that service in the R.N.A.S. should count in all respects as service in a ship of war at sea. This, however, was not sufficient to qualify an officer for promotion to Flag Rank, since for this purpose service in actual command of one of H.M. Ships was necessary.

In spite of the fact that at the time of his retirement, Captain H. Briggs had insufficient time in command of a ship of war at sea, which was then a necessary qualification for promotion to Flag Rank, the question of his promotion was given individual consideration together with certain other similar cases. This was done as it was considered there might be special circumstances in the case of some officers which would justify an exception being made to the normal rule. Had there been the necessity the Admiralty could have submitted a Memorial to His Majesty in Council to enable Captain Briggs to be promoted to Flag Rank. The Board did not, however, at that time consider that in the case of Captain Briggs the reasons


were sufficiently strong to justify an exception, and after a careful review of all the circumstances I am unable to recommend any departure from the original decision.

Sicily (Letters from Home)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there has been any interruption in recent weeks of the regular delivery of letters from home to royal naval bases in Sicily?

Mr. Alexander: No, Sir. There has been a regular delivery of mails by both sea and air to Sicily.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can my right hon. Friend assign any reason for the fact that of the letters from two of my constituents to their sons in Sicily sent each week since June none has been received?

Mr. Alexander: There have been a few complaints received, but they have usually been cases of mis-sorting and things of that sort, which have been put right as speedily as possible. The main delivery of mails has been quite regular.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-AMERICAN CARIBBEAN COMMISSION (REPORT)

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Anglo-American Caribbean Commission have yet prepared any review or report of their activities; and whether it can be made available to Parliament?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Stanley): A report covering the work of the Commission up to the end of June, 1943, is now being prepared by the Joint Secretaries to the Commission. It will be made available to Parliament in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA (MEALS, SCHOOLCHILDREN)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether meals and milk are now to be provided for schoolchildren in British Guiana in other places than Georgetown; whether this arrangement has already come into operation; and what charge is being made to the children?

Colonel Stanley: A scheme to provide meals for schoolchildren outside Georgetown is being placed before the Legislative Council. It is proposed to supply meals free to necessitous children and to charge one penny a meal to others. Milk is not generally included in the scheme on account of shortage, but the possibility of supplying it will be kept in view.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Maize (Price)

Mr. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the difficulties that have arisen in Kenya in consequence of the low price paid for African-grown maize, as compared with the much higher price paid for that grown by Europeans, and to the complaints made before the Food Commission with regard to black-market operations, and whether he will make a statement on the working of maize control and the steps which will be taken to remove the disparity in price between maize grown by Africans and by Europeans, respectively?

Colonel Stanley: There is no difference in the basic price paid for maize whether grown by Africans or by Europeans except on grounds of quality; and the differentiation in this respect amounts to 25 cents. per 200 lbs. The apparently greater disparity in price is due to the additional costs borne by the European grower, who sells free on rail in 200 lb. bags, while the African sells his maize loose at marketing centres which may be many miles from the railway. The Commission of inquiry into the food shortage and the system of maize control is expected to report very shortly. In the meantime it would be premature for me to make a statement.

Mr. Harvey: Were not representations made that the lower price paid for native-grown maize has resulted in a falling-off in production, which is very undesirable, and will my right hon. and gallant Friend continue to make it clear that it is the quality of the maize and not the colour of the growers that is important?

Colonel Stanley: Representations may have been made, but I think we had better await the report of the Commission to see whether they consider those representations justified.

European Settlement

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether official endorsement has been given to further schemes of European settlement in Kenya; and what is the Government policy on this matter?

Colonel Stanley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for East Leicester (Major Lyons) on 13th October.

Mr. Creech Jones: How soon does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman hope to be able to make a statement on this rather important matter?

Colonel Stanley: Certainly not till I have received the reports and recommendations referred to in my answer.

Mr. Riley: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gives consent to any proposals from the Legislative Council of Kenya, will this House have a chance of considering them?

Colonel Stanley: Obviously the House will have a chance of considering any proposals long before they can be put into force, which would not be till after the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN (GOVERNMENT OFFICERS, WAR BONUS)

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will review the salaries of the principal officers engaged in Government service in Aden; and why these officers have not been given a relative war bonus to meet the rise in the cost of living?

Colonel Stanley: I am at the moment in correspondence with the Governor on the subject, and the question whether some form of war bonus should be paid to the principal officers in Government service in Aden Colony Protectorate is now being considered.

Mr. Walkden: While thanking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether he will regard the matter as an extremely urgent one, in view of the fact that the cost of living in Aden has risen by more than 200 per cent. on his own figures?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, I regard the matter as very urgent.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD

Sugar Industry

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are any conditions as to the employment of labour on Trinidad sugar growers receiving a subsidy from His Majesty's Government; and whether such subsidy is payable to small as well as large growers?

Colonel Stanley: The conditions of employment of labour in the sugar industry are governed by local legislation for the employment of labour generally which imposes no specific conditions on the sugar growers. No subsidy is at present paid to Trinidad sugar growers by His Majesty's Government. Should the situation change, I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Unemployment Insurance

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government intend to introduce legislation for the creation of an unemployment insurance scheme in Trinidad?

Colonel Stanley: I understand that the Acting Governor of Trinidad appointed last month a Committee to explore the possibility of introducing in the Trinidad Legislature some contributory system of unemployment insurance.

Mr. Dugdale: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman any idea when the investigations will reach a conclusion?

Colonel Stanley: I could not say. The Committee has only just been set up.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION (MARRIED WOMEN)

Viscountess Davidson: asked the Minister without Portfolio what steps it is proposed to take on demobilisation to ensure that married women in the Forces can re-establish their homes before the demobilisation of their husbands?

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): We are fully alive to the strong arguments in favour of giving priority to married women on demobilisation. This matter is receiving consideration in the general review of demobilisation plans which is now proceeding.

Mr. Molson: Is this matter receiving the consideration of the Service Departments or of the large and busy Department over which my right hon. and learned Friend presides?

Sir W. Jowitt: It is receiving the consideration of the Government, and, of course, in particular of those Departments, which are many, which are concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWSPRINT SUPPLIES

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Production (1) whether he has any evidence that the majority of newspapers have been able to take up the 11½ per cent. increase permitted;
(2) the name or names of the bodies with whom he had consultations before he sanctioned the increase of 11½ per cent. in newsprint supplies;
(3) whether before sanctioning the increase of 11½ per cent. in newsprint supplies the repercussions of this increase on labour, materials and shipping space, was discussed with the Ministry of Labour, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of War Transport?

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): I am informed that some newspapers are using the full allocation but that a substantial number are not. The paper so saved is going into the general reserve stock of newsprint. The effect of this increase on the matters referred to was considered in conjunction with the appropriate Departments, and the representatives of the newspapers were also consulted.

Mr. Barnes: Does not the Minister admit in his reply that he has sanctioned an increase which goes beyond the desires of the public, and will he say why this preference should be given to one industry in contrast with the Government treatment of other industries in general?

Mr. Lyttelton: : The increase in the allocation for newspapers was made upon representations that the Forces were extremely short of newspapers. I think we must suspend judgment upon whether the whole of this increase will be taken to a slightly later date, because the alteration has hardly had time to work.

Mr. Barnes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I desire to give

notice that I shall raise this matter at an appropriate time upon the Adjournment.

Sir A. Hudson: asked the Minister of Production whether he has yet looked into the question of replacing the paper cut to weekly newspapers and periodicals to put them again on the same quota as the daily newspapers; whether it was after consultation with him that the War Office, through the Stationery Office, selected 14 out of some 500 weekly newspapers and periodicals to whom extra paper should be allotted; that the weekly newspapers and periodicals are dissatisfied with this arrangement; and whether, since this concession will involve less than 90 tons of paper per week as against 500 tons already granted to the daily newspapers, he will treat all newspapers and periodicals alike?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. I have decided to allot more paper to periodicals to bring their allocation into line with that for newspapers. The purpose is to enable the needs of the Forces to be fully met, and I am now consulting the representatives of the periodicals as to the method by which this can be done.

Sir A. Hudson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to those concerned and that he will get the greatest co-operation from the weekly newspapers to make the scheme a success?

Mr. Lindsay: As my right hon. Friend says there is a surplus from the newspapers, will he give a little larger allocation for books, to bring them more into line?

Mr. Lyttelton: As I replied last week, I am examining the question of whether some special allocation can be made for books, and more particularly for educational books, but I have not yet completed my inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WAR PRODUCTION

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Production whether, having regard to the extensive details now being published of American war production he is prepared to give comparable figures of British war production?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir.

Sir H. Williams: Since the United States and this country are engaged in the same


war, and since the right hon. Gentleman's opposite number has told us over the week-end the number of aeroplanes, the tonnage of shipping, the number of guns, the number of shells and the number of rounds of small arms ammunition, what is the sense of refusing the corresponding information to us on the ground that it would be against the public interest?

Mr. Lyttelton: I must not be held responsible for what is done in the United States, but it becomes still more important for us to be careful on matters of security, since if we also issued figures the total figures would be available to the enemy.

Sir H. Williams: After what has been disclosed in America, does it call for a great deal of intelligence to deduce the rest, seeing that the Germans are no doubt able to calculate our man-power?

Mr. Lyttelton: If the hon. Member knows the answer, why does he press me to give it?

Mr. Stokes: Is not the true answer that publication would cause the Government to reveal the true position in regard to tanks?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Fish (Distribution)

Mr. Maclean: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the quantities of fish that are being withdrawn from Scottish ports to supply places in England previously supplied from Fleetwood?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): Under the revised White Fish Distribution Scheme, which came into operation on the 16th October, half the entitlement of the Manchester market has been transferred from Fleetwood to Scottish ports. The quantities involved depend on landings, but the share transferred represents 7 per cent. of supplies landed in Scotland.

Mr. Maclean: Does not the Minister think it is quite unfair that localities in Scotland which are already short of this particular food should be made shorter still by the transfer to Manchester of food that should be distributed among them?

Mr. Mabane: No, Sir. The amount available in Scotland still represents a just

proportion of the total landings in the country. There were other adjustments in the course of the year, which meant that Scotland really was getting rather more than a proper share, and this means that the position is now pretty well what it was at the beginning.

Mr. Maclean: Will the hon. Member transfer his house to Scotland and get himself rationed there for fish, and find out where he is then?

Mr. Mabane: If the hon. Member would go to Manchester, he would find that Manchester does not share his views.

National Flour

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the percentages of the present components of standard flour?

Mr. Mabane: National flour is at present milled from a grist consisting of 90 per cent. wheat and 10 per cent. diluent grains. Authorised additions are calcium at the rate of 7 oz. per 280 lb. of flour and dried milk at the rate of 2 lb. per 280 lb. of flour and customary improvers in normal proportions.

Mr. Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman say what are the components of the 10 per cent. diluent grains?

Mr. Mabane: Barley, oats and rye.

Mr. Astor: What are "customary improvers"?

Mr. Mabane: They are certain oxidising agents which improve the quality of the bread baked from the flour, and their nature depends on the kind of grain used, whether hard or soft.

Vinegar (Shortage)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the acute shortage of vinegar in the southern counties; and what steps he is taking to remedy it?

Mr. Mabane: This shortage is not confined to the southern counties; it is general. At this period of the year there is a seasonal increase in demand. Increased allocations are made, but in war-time the increase is limited by a shortage of containers.

Prosecutions, Reigate

Mr. Touche: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he was aware that there have recently been many prosecutions on behalf of the Ministry brought before Reigate Borough Bench for alleged minor offences of the food control regulations; that some of these summonses have been dismissed by the bench and, in other cases, small fines were imposed; and whether more discretion can be used to ensure that minor or technical breaches of these regulations should be dealt with by caution rather than by prosecution?

Mr. Mabane: It has not been possible in the time available to gather the information required for a reply, but when the necessary inquiries are complete I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS (SHOOTING INQUIRY)

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the composition of the Commission of Inquiry into the shooting of four workers in Mauritius; what are the terms of reference to the Commission; how soon it will begin its inquiries; and whether, in view of the long delay in implementing some of the recommendations of the Orde Browne Report, he will insist that immediate steps be taken, including the granting of amended trade union facilities?

Colonel Stanley: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the composition and terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the last part of the Question, Major Orde Browne's Report was only published in Mauritius on 11th June, and many of its recommendations require legislative action. Steps are being taken to amend the legislation with regard to the formation of industrial associations, and in the meantime no application to form such an association has been refused, and certain new associations have been added to the Schedule in the existing legislation.

Mr. Creech Jones: Although the Report was published only in June, surely it has been in the hands of the Government of Mauritius for quite a long time before and, in view of the recent tragic incident and the very bad industrial relations in

Mauritius, may I ask that some expedition will be shown by the Mauritius Government in all labour matters?

Colonel Stanley: I am sure that they will show all possible speed, but I cannot help feeling that a Report published in June might well, even in this country, not have received legislative sanction yet, by October.

Following is the composition of the Commission of Inquiry:

(a) The Colonial Secretary as Chairman,
(b) Dr. Laurent, Senior Member of the Council of Government,
(c) Mr. Osman, Nominated Member of the Council of Government,
(d) Mr. Noel, Judge of the Supreme Court, and
(e) Judge Neerunjhun.

The terms of reference of the Commission, which has already begun its inquiries, are as follow:
To make a diligent and full inquiry, report upon and make such recommendations as you think fit, in connection with the recent disturbances which leave occurred in the north of the Colony.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA

Smallholdings

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies approximately the number of smallholders who have been settled on land in Jamaica by Government initiative since 1938; the cost and extent of the land acquired; the terms regarding repayment of loans by the cultivators; and whether these land settlements have resulted in increased production and prosperity?

Colonel Stanley: The report on the Jamaica Lands Department for 1942–43 has not yet reached me. Up to 31st March, 1942, 16,104 smallholders had been allotted settlements, covering an area of 75,590 acres, acquired at a cost of £518,930. The report does not state how many of these smallholders had been settled since 1938. A deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price is payable in advance by settlers; the balance is payable by instalments over a period of 10 years. The initial deposit is waived in necessitous cases. There has been steady progress in agricultural development on the settlements.

Banana Growing

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the demands made by the peasant growers of bananas in Jamaica for Government assistance to meet the cost of spraying their crops in order to combat the ravages of leaf-spot disease which is causing widespread poverty and distress among small growers; and what action has been taken?

Colonel Stanley: I have not yet received representations on this subject. United Kingdom funds have been made available to the Department of Agriculture for dealing with control measures against the disease. A Banana Leaf-Spot Control Board has also been set up to provide assistance for growers by the issue free, on loan, of the necessary equipment and material. Funds for the Board's work are raised under the guaranteed purchase scheme financed from United Kingdom funds. Active research is being undertaken with the object of finding or breeding varieties immune or resistant to both leaf-spot and Panama disease.

Mr. Hannah: Who gets these bananas?

Colonel Stanley: The people of Jamaica, who grow them

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COLONIES (SECRETARY OF STATE'S TOUR)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is his intention to issue a report to Parliament on his recent visit to our African Colonies or, alternatively, whether he intends to take an early opportunity of making a statement?

Colonel Stanley: I do not think that either the nature or the duration of my tour lend themselves to a report to Parliament or to a formal statement. I shall be most happy, however, to place myself at the disposal of any hon. Members who would like me to give them informally my impressions as a result of my tour.

Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that great interest has been taken in his tour and that a meeting at which Members might be informed about it would be greatly appreciated?

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (POST-WAR EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans are being prepared for the post-war employment of East Africans after demobilisation in Kenya and Tanganyika; when the committees appointed to deal with this matter are likely to report; and whether the increased technical knowledge of East African soldiers is being related to post-war opportunities of raising the standard of living of East African peoples?

Colonel Stanley: Consideration is being given by all the Governments to the problem of post-war employment of East Africans after demobilisation, and plans are being drawn up in close consultation with the military authorities in order to secure that they are properly related to the rate and method of demobilisation. The results of this detailed study have not yet reached me. The report of the Committee appointed to examine the question in Kenya is now under consideration by the Kenya Government. The point raised in the last paragraph of the Question is one which I have impressed upon all Colonial Governments, and I know that the East African Governments have it very much in mind.

Mr. Sorensen: Are definite steps being taken to secure to the advantage of the grower the skill that these men acquired during their experience as soldiers, and will not that, used properly, assist in the development of East Africa?

Colonel Stanley: That is quite true, and it is of course a material factor in the development plan, apart from the demobilisation plan, which these Governments are putting forward.

Sir H. Williams: Are there any restrictions on black men there, in the occupations they can take up on the ground of skill?

Colonel Stanley: I do not know of any case where jobs are not being found for them commensurate with their mechanical skill.

Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind the importance of a co-ordinated policy in these African territories, and particularly in Tanganyika, Uganda, Northern Rhodesia and Kenya? Will he obtain separate


reports from each Government and endeavour, in his office, to get a composite picture of the whole problem in view of the fact that if there is a different system in one Colony as from another it will lead to a great deal of trouble?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir, I entirely agree with the Noble Lord that some kind of co-ordination is essential. I think it is more necessary between the four Governments in East Africa than it is among the whole six, but some kind of co-ordination is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — RULE OF THE ROAD

Wing-Commander James: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether his Department is considering, and consulting with the interests involved, the desirability of taking advantage of the offered opportunity to change the rule of the road in conformity with the rest of the world?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): A number of foreign countries have the same rule of the road as the United Kingdom. To change the rule in any of these countries would require the reconstruction of omnibuses, traffic signs and traffic signals. I recognise, however, that there would be advantages in uniformity, and if an opportunity for general international action should present itself after the war, we should, I think, have to weigh those advantages against the difficulties of changing our present practice.

Wing-Commander James: Is there any reason why we should not take unilateral action in regard to our own roads?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid it would not be practicable to make a change during the war, and therefore it is probably better to try to secure international action after the war.

Mr. Mathers: Will the Minister keep in mind the fact that, according to the best available evidence, the tendency in this country is to go continually to the left?

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: How many European countries adopt the same rule as we do?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think there are three, in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions — OMNIBUS SERVICES

Mr. Turton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that on the Leeds to Alwoodley route the West Yorkshire Omnibus Company provide a monthly contract ticket that permits four journeys per day; and whether he will see that the company provides a similar concession on the York to Haxby route?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The unlimited travel contract tickets between Leeds and Alwoodley have not hitherto been withdrawn on the services of the West Yorkshire Road Car Company because the company operate this route jointly with the Leeds City Corporation, and the arrangements for the withdrawal of contract tickets on the services of the Corporation had not been completed. These arrangements, however, have now been completed, and all contract tickets on the Leeds-Alwoodley services will be withdrawn on Saturday next.

Mr. Charles Wood: Is my hon. Friend aware that the withdrawal of these tickets by the West Yorkshire Bus Company in the York area will cause considerable hardship? Will he reconsider the whole matter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid that I could not accept the word "hardship." If my hon. Friend will consult Hansard for about ten days ago, he will see that I think the hardship is very small.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will cause an examination to be made into the present arrangements made at Spalding, Lincolnshire, for putting down and picking up passengers by motor omnibus; and what steps are taken to secure co-ordination between rail and road for the safety and convenience of travellers?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have not received any evidence of general dissatisfaction with the arrangements at Spalding. If, however, my hon. Friend has any special difficulties in mind, I shall be happy to make inquiries or to discuss them with him.

Mr. Butcher: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I invite him to refer to the columns of the "Spalding Free Press" before we meet?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. The Regional Transport Commissioner is actually consulting the local authorities and the police to see whether improvements can be made.

Mr. Maclean: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that at rush-hours Glasgow Corporation omnibuses travelling between the garage and their work travel on one journey empty and do not pick up passengers either at fare stations or stops; that consequently at rush-hours number of people who could be accommodated in the empty omnibuses and could so get to their homes are left standing for a considerable time; and whether he will cause the Glasgow Transport Committee to consider some method whereby, instead of travelling nonstop and empty, they will stop and pick up passengers?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Regional Transport Commissioner has instructed all operators in the Region that, except for very special reasons, omnibuses on garage runs must take up passengers. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of any particular case he has in mind, I will make further inquiries.

Mr. Maclean: Are the Minister and the Traffic Commissioners aware that this practice has been going on for about three years, the buses flying past the stops and, in spite of signalling, making no attempt to stop? It has become a scandal in Glasgow.

Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend must recognise that there are exceptions to the rule which I have just stated, which are necessary because fuller accommodation must be kept available for workers; but, as a general rule, the instruction has been given, and I think it is being obeyed.

Mr. Maclean: If the Minister will look at my Question, I think he will find that it does not refer to buses going to the garage but to buses going from the garage to the works to pick workmen up and bring them back. On the whole of the outward run they will not pick up passengers at all.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think I understand my hon. Friend's Question, and I would say that on the instructions given them they ought to pick up; but I will look further into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT SHIPPING ORDER

Sir H. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why the Emergency Powers (Defence) (Merchant Shipping) Order (S.R. & O., No. 1464, of 1943), which was signed on 30th September, 1943, and came into operation on that date, was not available in the Library till 14th October?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I regret that the delay occurred through an oversight in my Department. Steps have been taken to make sure that no such delay shall occur again.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT ADVISORY COUNCIL

Sir H. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport the date of the last meeting of the Transport Advisory Council created under the provisions of the Road-Rail Act?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The last meeting of the Transport Advisory Council was held on 30th May, 1940.

Sir H. Williams: Can my hon. Friend say why this statutory body has been put into cold storage instead of performing its appropriate duties?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It was felt that it was a large and numerous body not well adapted for the purposes of war, and its duties are now being performed by the Inland Transport War Council.

Sir H. Williams: But is it not the case that one is a statutory body, has powers, and duties, and that the other is non-statutory and informal? By what right has the Minister superseded a statutory body by a body which has no authority?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that this has received the authority of Parliament for three years in the sense that it has not been challenged. If the hon. Member will put down another Question, I will give him another answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEND-LEASE (INFORMATION TO UNITED STATES)

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the Minister of Information whether, in view of the publication by the United States Government of the value of Lend-Lease


to this country, he will take steps to make known throughout the United States that, apart from the value of aircraft factories built there by British money from the sale of British securities and other means prior to Lend-Lease, the United States were given the completed results of research involving, over many years, large expenditure, and that the value of these achievements, including radiolocation, cannot be computed in money, but constitutes a substantial contribution by this country to the common war effort?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): Yes, Sir. The British Information Services in the United States are doing everything in their power to stress the points contained in my hon. and gallant Friend's Question.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, will he urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement as to what reverse Lend-Lease amounts to?

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman had better put down a Question to the Chancellor.

Mr. Stokes: I have done that and got no satisfaction.

Oral Answers to Questions — BENEDETTO CROCE (INTERVIEW)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Minister of Information why an interview given by Benedetto Croce to an American journalist was not allowed to be published in this country?

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member appears to be misinformed. No such article has been submitted to British censorship by a British newspaper, nor has the Ministry of Information taken any action in the matter.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the interview was given either to John Gunther or John Steinbeck and that transmission to this country was stopped by the censorship in Algiers?

Mr. Bracken: I must say that the hon. Member really must take some responsibility for his Questions. The British Ministry of Information is not in charge of the Algiers censorship. We have quite enough trouble on our hands without interfering with the affairs of other countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (DECEASED AND DISABLED SERVICE MEN'S CHILDREN)

Lady Apsley: asked the President of the Board of Education what immediate provision is being made to give preference in providing free higher education to children of men of His Majesty's Forces who have been killed in this war, and more especially for those children who would have received education at grammar schools and/or universities if their fathers had not been called from their normal occupation to serve in the Forces?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): The system of special places at grant-aided secondary schools provides for the partial or total remission of fees according to the means of the family. In cases where circumstances change for the worse after the admission of the child to school, authorities have full power to make new or revised awards and to deal specially with hard cases. Similar conditions apply in the case of State scholarships tenable at universities. Grants are also made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions towards providing children, whose fathers have been disabled or killed in the war, with the educational facilities which they would otherwise have enjoyed.

Lady Apsley: Might I request the hon. Gentleman to make that more generally known?

Mr. Ede: I hope that the Question and answer will have that effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — VOTE OF CREDIT (SUPPLEMENTARY), 1943

(EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR)

Estimate presented,—of the further Sum required to be voted towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on 31st March, 1944, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament, for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm; the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 120.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Attlee.]

Orders of the Day — RENT OF FURNISHED HOUSES CONTROL (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with regard to the rent of houses or parts thereof in Scotland let at a rent which includes payment for the use of furniture or for attendance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the sums required for the payment of remuneration and salaries and allowances to the members, acting members, clerks and officers and servants of Tribunals appointed under the said Act.

Resolution agreed to.

RENT OF FURNISHED HOUSES CONTROL (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Application of Act by Order of the Secretary of State and appointment of Tribunal.)

The Deputy-Chairman: It appears that through an error an Amendment put down by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) appears under Clause 2 instead of Clause 1. It is accordingly the first Amendment to be called.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I apologise to the Committee for a clerical slip for which my writing may have been responsible. The Amendment which appears on the Order Paper under my name attached to Clause 2 should really have been an Amendment following the first word in Clause 1. Accordingly, I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, after "Where," to insert:
after inquiry into the probable effect of this Act upon the supply of furnished apartments to let.

Mr. McKinlay: In view of the fact that the Amendment originally placed on the Order Paper was


somewhat loosely taken care of, could I ask the hon. Member to repeat in a louder voice exactly what his Amendment is?

Mr. Stewart: There was a little noise, and I will gladly repeat that the Amendment that I am now moving is to follow the first word in Clause 1, "Where." I suggest that, in considering the effect of this Bill, the first requirement is to assess the size of the problem with which the Bill is intended to deal. In his introductory speech on the Second Reading, the Secretary of State made it plain that the great majority of householders were charging quite reasonable rents for sublet furnished rooms. My right hon. Friend said:
We must observe in fairness that the overwhelming number of lessors of furnished dwellings do not take any undue advantage of the necessities of the lessees and that in hundreds of thousands of cases the terms of let are amicably and equitably arranged between the parties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1943; col. 1254; Vol. 392.]
If the Secretary of State meant what he said, as I am sure he did, and if his statement is accurate, as I have no doubt it is, we are concerned in this Bill with only a very small minority of people, who deserve the censure of Parliament. I do not know the actual figure—it has not been given—and I would like an estimate from my right hon. Friend. But if the total of houses in Scotland where sublets take place is somewhere about 500,000 or 600,000, and if my right hon. Friends says that in hundreds of thousands of cases the rents are fair, there cannot be more than 2,000 or 3,000 cases where other conditions prevail. I do not think I would be far wrong if I said that the number of cases with which this Bill is concerned does not represent more than one-tenth of one per cent. of the total number of houses in Scotland. I am open to correction, but that is my estimate. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) has a better estimate, I will willingly give way. As many of the houses with which this Bill is intended to deal may accommodate three, five or seven sub-tenants per house, the effective percentage may be less than that. The purpose of this Bill is to deal not with householders in general, but only with a minute proportion of the total number of householders in Scotland. In the denunciation of the evil deeds of those people I am in complete accord with my

right hon. Friend. The exploitation of defenceless families in the manner described by my right hon. Friend is surely the most cruel and heartless action which any body of citizens could take. I am 100 per cent. with my right hon. Friend in desiring to punish such people. I would go even further than he in exacting punishment, provided—and this proviso is vital—that by punishing that minority you are not thereby inflicting much more severe hardship upon the subtenants immediately affected and upon the hundreds of thousands of other sub-tenants whose only desire is to get a roof over their heads. It is because I am not assured on that point that I move this Amendment.
There is no dispute as to the importance of the issue. Indeed, it is the overwhelming issue with which we are concerned. If by instituting these rent tribunals, and in effect threatening every lessor of furnished apartments with an inquisition into his business, you frighten lessors into declining to let at all, which seems to me to be the inevitable result, you will have dried up the supply of furnished apartments, and your final result will be infinitely more anti-social than the original cause. You will have cured one evil only to replace it with another more cruel. The Secretary of State himself saw that danger. That was abundantly plain from his opening speech, in which he said:
The last thing want to do is so to upset or prejudice these amicable arrangements that we might drive lessors into refusing to let their furnished rooms at all. The greatest possible error we could commit would be to take any steps that would limit the amount of housing accommodation presently available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1943; col. 1254, Vol. 392.]
The Lord Advocate was even more emphatic on this very point. It is worth while reminding the Committee of what he said:
After all, the purpose of all this litigation is to get house room for people who need it.
The whole Committee would agree that that is a fundamentally true statement. He went on:
What we must avoid at all costs is dissuading potential lessors from making their accommodation available to lessees. We cannot compel people to let, and if we put so many obstacles in the way of people who do let, we shall dry up the source of house room we have at present, and we must be careful about that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1943; col. 1307, Vol. 392.]


Indeed we must be very careful; and it is to ensure that the Scottish Office is exceedingly careful on this complicated, dangerous topic that I have tabled my Amendment. Apart from the Minister's words on the Second Reading, I can conceive no sign of care or wise consideration in this Bill. It appears to me to be a slapdash effort, distinguished only by its bad qualities. I must really take the Lord Advocate to task. Hon. Members will recall the opening sentences of his speech in winding up the Second Reading Debate. He said:
We have produced the simplest Bill which seemed to be at all adequate to meet the situation. Most hon. Members have agreed that we could hardly have done anything else. Therefore, I do not think I need take time to-day in saying anything about the general principles of the Measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1943; col. 1302, Vol. 392.]

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out to him that this is a comparatively narrow Amendment and not one on which we can discuss the general principles of the Bill.

Mr. Stewart: May I be permitted, with respect, to submit that it is not a narrow but a very broad Amendment? The point of it is that until the Secretary of State makes a full inquiry into the whole effect of the Bill nothing should be done under the Bill. Therefore, I would ask permission, at least to consider in relation to it the wider principles of the Measure. I do not wish at all to suggest that the Lord Advocate was inattentive to the Debate on the previous occasion or that he was unwilling to recognise what is the purpose of a Second Reading discussion, but a greater travesty of the facts than that given by him in his speech I cannot imagine. I listened to a good many of the speeches made from the Opposition benches, and I read the reports of others—

The Deputy-Chairman: I must again point out to the hon. Member that if this discussion is kept on the wider basis on which it is at present, it will not be a discussion of the question of an inquiry, but of the Clause as a whole, and that would not be in Order.

Mr. Stewart: I thank you, Mr. Williams. I am aware of that possibility. I hope I shall not appear to be challenging the decision of the House on the Second Read-

ing, but the point which I wish to raise is of immense importance to us in Scotland. It was raised by almost every hon. Member in the course of the previous Debate, and I have endeavoured to put down a constructive Amendment to meet the difficulties which were then indicated. As I say, I listened to or read all the speeches made on the Second Reading, and I can hardly recall a case of a Measure being so very plainly damned by faint praise. There was not a single speech from the Opposition side, not even those of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) or the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan), and very few from this side which did not, in effect, denounce the Bill as going the wrong way about the task which it purported to perform. For the Lord Advocate in such circumstances to decline to say anything about the general principles of the Bill was, I think, very strange in view of the number of people in Scotland who are concerned about this Measure.
Let us see how the principles of the Bill, as it is now drafted, and without my Amendment, would operate, and the Committee will be able to judge whether to accept the Amendment or not. I take first the case of the actual subjects, namely the lessees whose rents will be determined by the rent tribunals. If the determination is against a lowering of the rent, then the lessees, clearly, will be no better off and may well be worse off, for this will likely destroy whatever harmony previously existed in their relations with the lessor. Hon. Members know that discord in a small house full of people of different families, may be a hell upon earth for all concerned, and I would not like to be responsible for causing that in houses in Scotland. But supposing the determination lowers the rent, will the lessees, that is the sub-tenants, necessarily be advantaged? I admit a few of them may be, but, for many, a bleak fate lies in store, for sooner or later the lessor will decide that it no longer pays, that it is no longer worth the trouble to let the rooms at the reduced rent.

Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order. If the hon. Member is to be permitted to travel over what was covered in the Second Reading Debate, I submit that other hon. Members should not be ruled out if they seek to answer the points which he persists in raising.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) has put the Committee and the Chair in a very difficult position, first, by getting his Amendment on to the Paper in the wrong place, and then, when it has been put in the right place, by making what is quite clearly a speech on the main principles of the Bill. The Amendment, as I have already pointed out to him, is limited to demanding an inquiry, and that in no way justifies the hon. Member in trotting out the general principles of the Bill one by one and dealing with them as he is now seeking to do.

Mr. Sloan: May I ask what is to happen to the hon. Gentleman now? He has his speech written, and how can he depart from it?

The Deputy-Chairman: I believe it is often the case that a blind eye is turned to hon. Members as regards the use of notes, but perhaps the hon. Member will now be able to continue on the question of holding an inquiry and nothing more.

Mr. Stewart: I do not wish to go beyond the Rules governing the procedure of the Committee, and I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). But I think we would all agree that I am really dealing now with the main points of the Bill and the main difficulty which we all feel—

Hon. Members: No, no.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is precisely why the hon. Gentleman is out of Order. He will persist in dealing with the main points and not with the detailed point of his Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: I think it ought to be made clear that on the Second Reading the House decided in favour of tribunals. The hon. Member is now trying to argue against tribunals and is reopening a matter which was decided on the Second Reading.

The Deputy-Chairman: As far as that point is concerned, obviously this Amendment deals only with the necessity for an inquiry, and the discussion should be confined to that, otherwise there is a danger that we shall find ourselves in a discussion on the general principles of the Bill.

Mr. Stewart: I can only endeavour, Mr. Williams, to keep within the Ruling which you have very properly given to

the Committee. I was trying to consider, as is, I think, appropriate on this occasion, what would be the effect of Clause 1 upon—

The Deputy-Chairman: We are not discussing Clause 1. We are discussing the hon. Member's Amendment and not the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Stewart: I will put it more concisely. I wish to consider the effect of my Amendment on Clause 1 as now drafted, and the effect of not including my Amendment, which I think would be in Order. I was trying to point out that, as the Clause now stands, the lessees concerned would find themselves in the greatest possible difficulty. There were some cogent and penetrating remarks upon this point by the hon. Lady the Member for Springburn (Mrs. Hardie). The truth is that unless this Clause is accompanied by a clear provision preventing the eviction of a tenant, it will be impossible to make the Clause work.

The Deputy-Chairman: Having listened so far to the hon. Member, I am now convinced that this Amendment should never have been called. I will, therefore, now call the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).

Mr. Stewart: On a point of Order. May I take it that I shall be able to raise some of these points on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

The Deputy-Chairman: Not the points which the hon. Member has already raised. He cannot repeat his speech.

Mr. Gallacher: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out from "satisfied," to the first "that," in line 7.
I would put this point to the Lord Advocate. Words that are not necessary can never help a Bill. If they have any effect at all, it is to retard the work that a particular Bill is supposed to do. I suggest that these words are absolutely unnecessary. If you leave out these words, there is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State for Scotland from consulting the local authority, if it should be essential to consult them. To put in words like these and to make representa-


tion by or consultation with the local authority obligatory is patchwork legislation which cannot be any credit to the House of Commons. A very strong case is presented to the House of Commons by Member after Member, and as a result the House of Commons is satisfied that tribunals must be set up in particular areas of Scotland. Someone has said to me that the democratic method is to consult the local authorities in matters of this kind. I would reply that this is a form of democracy without any content, and a form of democracy without any content is red tape.
Every Member of this Committee who has taken the slightest interest in this business knows that a tribunal is absolutely necessary. If the Bill were to pass all its stages and a tribunal were to be set up, everybody would be satisfied. What is the sense of suggesting that there should be representations by, or consultations with, the local authority in Glasgow to consider what we all know to be absolutely necessary—the setting up of a tribunal? We get to this position. For instance, the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who is associated with the housing committee, makes a case for a tribunal in Glasgow, as did another hon. Member from the Glasgow area. The House of Commons is satisfied that the case is made and decides to set up a tribunal in Glasgow. "No," says the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs, "you cannot take a decision to set up a tribunal in Glasgow until you have had consultation with me." That is the idea contained in this phraseology. Suppose I were the Lord Provost of Glasgow—Heaven forbid that I should ever be—and we passed this Bill. Suppose the Secretary of State for Scotland writes me a letter in which he says: "My dear Lord Provost, we have passed the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Bill. Arising out of this Bill permission is given to set up tribunals. I would like to meet you and your Council on Tuesday of next week to discuss with you the desirability or otherwise of setting up such a tribunal in Glasgow." What would I reply? I would say, "My dear Secretary of State, why do you want to waste your time and my time and the time of my Council? I know, the members of my Council know, and you know, everybody in the country knows, that a tribunal is necessary in Glasgow.

If you want to consult us come and consult us." If the council of the area represented by the hon. and gallant Member for North Ayrshire (Sir C. MacAndrew) are of the same mind as the hon. and gallant Member, they will not want a tribunal. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Secretary of State, if these words are left out and he considers it necessary, from meeting the council in that area and discussing with them the setting-up of a tribunal, although in that particular area I would not have any consultation at all. I would decide to set up a tribunal and then meet them to discuss the matter.
I was nearly tempted to follow some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). That is the danger of an hon. Member making a Second Reading speech on a Committee point, and I will refrain. All that I want to impress upon the Committee is, that these words serve no purpose whatever. They do not help in any way, and they represent a type of patchwork legislation that can only have a hampering and hindering effect on the local authority. We have the responsibility for making a decision, and let us not hesitate to make that decision. The areas in which these tribunals are required immediately are known to us all and to the Secretary of State. Let us decide that the tribunals must be set up in these areas, and then the Secretary of State can have all the consultations he desires with the local authorities in connection with their personnel and their operation.

Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and which should not require very much persuasion on my part to get the Secretary of State for Scotland to accept. Nobody knows better than he what we hope to achieve in putting down the Amendment. He knows not only of the area represented by the hon. and gallant Member for North Ayrshire (Sir C. MacAndrew) but of other areas all over Scotland of a reactionary character, and he knows the state of mind he is up against in connection with this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the Amendment, they will find ways and means to retard a tribunal being appointed. We wish the Secretary of State for Scotland to have the power


to set up tribunals whether the particular council is willing to accept a tribunal or not. If he found that a council was adamant, it would be easy for him to come to this House to seek power to deal with it. I do not think that that would be necessary. The majority of the people of Scotland, after reading the Debate which took place last week, in which the hellish conditions under which thousands of folk live in Scotland were laid bare, are prepared to back the Secretary of State for Scotland in order to try and get rid of them, and it is in order to strengthen his hand that we ask him to accept the Amendment.

Mr. McKinlay: I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not give way. I think that the complete answer is that part of the agitation out of which this Bill has been borne is an agitation carried on by the local authorities. I have no desire to make any reference to the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) at all, but I want to issue this warning. Unless he puts himself into touch with the local authority in an effort to co-operate even in his backward areas, he may find himself in rather an invidious position. It is because the information has been collected that the Bill has made its appearance. As far as the Amendment is concerned, I have been a member of a local authority for 12 years, and this is a local authority problem. It ill becomes anyone who subscribes to the policy of the Labour Party to do anything to take away the functions of the local authority.

Mr. Gallacher: What functions?

Mr. McKinlay: My hon. Friend asks, "What functions?". The functions of the local authority in relation to housing and public health. In any case, if the worst happens, there is nothing contained in the Clause as it is printed that prevents the Secretary of State for Scotland "on representation by, or after consultation with" from taking action. It does not necessarily follow that the Secretary of State's action is going to be determined and dictated by the attitude of the local authority. I do not read anything in this that would prevent the Secretary of State from taking action if in his judgment, after consultation and although the representations were all against it, such action were

necessary. My view is that the Secretary of State has an overriding authority. It may be true that we have reactionary authorities, but need I draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the fact that, if we have reactionary local authorities, they are the products of the people who put them there, and to destroy the powers and functions of the local authority is no way to achieve the object you may have in view?

Mr. Gallacher: After consultation.

Mr. McKinlay: I did not interrupt the hon. Member, and I want to say definitely that I hope the Debate will be carried on without any undue offensiveness. I come from the best training school for membership of this House. I am not ashamed to say that it was in the Glasgow Town Council, which no doubt has produced its quota of half-wits as well as county councillors, although that is by the way. All I am asking is that the Secretary of State should not give way to any Amendment which would have the effect of ruling out the local knowledge possessed by the local authorities. Consultations took place before this Bill was framed, but—let me be quite brutal—I think the Bill is an anaemic attempt to deal with a very serious problem, although it does establish a principle for the first time and uses the local authorities in the establishment of that principle. Members should think twice before taking away from local government any of the local authority's functions.

Mr. Gallacher: What functions?

Mr. McKinlay: I will tell the hon. Member. We have been up against this for years, and members of local authorities, not confined to any particular party, know perfectly well that this question is linked up with the public health administration of the local authority. It is closely linked up with all the local authority's social activities. For instance, let us assume a Secretary of State of the calibre of one who used to be the hon. Member for Greenock. Supposing—

Mr. Kirkwood: He was a good Secretary of State.

Mr. McKinlay: The difference between us is that I had to deal with him as a housing convenor, and the hon. Member did not.

Mr. Kirkwood: I had to deal with him as much as the hon. Member.

Mr. McKinlay: My difficulty was that without consultation with the local authorities the subsidy under the 1924 Act was withdrawn, and that abortion known as the 1933 Act was substituted, without consultation with the local authorities, and rents fixed at 6s. a week, without consultation with the local authorities.

Mr. Gallacher: That is an entirely different matter.

Mr. McKinlay: Without consultation with the local authorities the local rate contribution jumped from £3 10s. to £8 16s. if the houses were built. This Committee ought not to consent to any Measure which would in any way lessen the influence of local government, which is the backbone of our political democracy. Far too many encroachments have already been made on local government during this war. We shall have a big enough struggle to get back what should be their prerogative after the war, and it is because I am jealous of the work local authorities are doing that I hope the Secretary of State will resist this Amendment.

Mr. McKie: Like the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay), I hope very much that the Secretary of State will resist this Amendment. I listened with very great interest, and I am sure the Committee did, too, to the entertaining and ingenious speech of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). The hon. Member made great play in protesting his love of democracy and proceeded very ingeniously to endeavour to persuade the Committee that the deletion of these words could be accomplished in a thoroughly democratic manner, that the Secretary of State need have no need for consultation with local bodies, that he could decide by himself and that he could interpret the needs and wishes of the people in various parts of Scotland on this very vexed topic. I am most decidedly of the opinion that if the right hon. Gentleman acted in such a manner, it would not be in the best interests of democracy. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire showed the Committee that the Secretary of State—I myself should have preferred the word "shall" rather than "may"—is more or less

bound to have these consultations. If, afterwards, he is not satisfied or convinced by the arguments of the local authorities, he may decide to act on his own initiative and brush away the objections which have been raised. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to North Ayrshire. I take it I shall be in Order in saying that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Ayrshire (Sir C. MacAndrew) voiced the feelings of the people in his constituency the other day. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs referred to reactionary local bodies in various parts of Scotland. He told the Committee that if these local bodies are reactionary, it was entirely the responsibility, or neglect of responsibility, of the electors who sent them to those bodies to interpret their wishes to the community. I know that if the hon. Member and I debated all day, we would never agree as to what local bodies were reactionary and what were progressive.
The reason why I want to see the words retained in the Bill is because in the areas which have been mentioned, like North Ayrshire, we have not the same number of people coming as summer visitors. But we do have a very large number, and it is in that sort of area where there might be trouble if these words were taken out. Indeed, I go so far as to say there would be big trouble. Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Ayrshire, I am not at all happy about the future of these people who let apartments year by year. I want to see their interests safeguarded just as much as the two hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs want to see the lamentable position regarding furnished houses in towns and industrial districts of Scotland put right. Nobody in the towns or industrial districts need have any fear because these democratic words are in the Bill. I hope the Secretary of State will tell us when he replies that he intends to retain these words in the Clause.

Mr. Sloan: I want to support the Amendment, and to do so without heat. The speech made by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) almost led one to believe that he is the only member of a local authority. I have been a member of a county


council, not for 11 years, but for 25 years, and I, too, have been able to consider the reactions of the people. It is true that the City of Glasgow has a Labour majority and that to that extent it may be quite easy to fall in with the wishes of the Secretary of State in regard to the problems such as those which are set out in this Bill. It is also true to say that this is a local authority problem, but if the local authorities refuse to work and act, it then becomes a problem for others. The difficulty about the whole matter is that it is permissible instead of being compulsory. There are many Acts on the Statute Book which have never been operated simply because of the permissive Section which has stated that the local authority "may" operate something instead of "shall." The Secretary of State and his Under-Secretaries know perfectly well that that is true. I can quite understand the reason for the friendliness of the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) towards the Secretary of State, because he comes from the most reactionary part of Scotland. If the Bill stands as it is at present, there will never be any requests from his local authority.

Mr. McKie: The hon. Member says that I come from one of the most reactionary parts of Scotland, but, in the words of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), the electors have hitherto continued to show their trust in their representatives on local bodies and in Parliament to put forward views which he now terms reactionary.

Mr. Sloan: The very fact that they have been sent back again is sufficient proof of the reactionary nature of the hon. Member's locality. If the Bill stands as it is, I cannot see that the preference is as great as it otherwise would be it the permissive nature is to remain. Why should it be necessary for discussions with local authorities? The Secretary of State would find it difficult to impose on them a tribunal they did not want. Then you would have claims that you were overriding democracy. The Secretary of State consults with the county council, and they say, "We do not want this, there is no necessity for it. Why should you attempt to impose upon us something that we do not want?" If the Bill is to be of any

use at all, the whole question whether the tribunal is to be set up or not should be taken out of the hands of the local authority. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire quotes cases of things which have been done without consultation with the local authorities. Many housing subsidies have been granted and put into operation, and the local authorities have refused to build the houses when they have had the subsidies. If we are again to be driven back to arguing the question with the local authorities, it will detract a great deal from the value of the Measure. I hope the Secretary of State will agree to the deletion of these words in order to make it more waterproof.

Mr. McLean Watson: I hope the Secretary of State will refuse the Amendment. I take my stand on very much the same ground as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). When I came to this House and for many years after I was a member of a county council, and I have always been very jealous of the powers of local authorities being cribbed or confined. I want to see more power in their hands and less in the hands of the central Government. I want to see local authorities consulted by the central Government on many more things than they are consulted on at the moment, and I certainly think, as this is a local government problem, the local authorities ought to be consulted in the setting up of these tribunals. They are not empowered to set them up; it is the Secretary of State who is to set them up after consultation with the local authorities. They are only to be consulted. That does not mean that their opinion will in every case be taken by the Secretary of State; even in spite of them the Secretary of State may come to the conclusion that he is justified in setting up a tribunal, and he is quite right to retain that power in his hands, but he would not set up a tribunal in any area without consultation with the local authority, and in my opinion he has a right to consult the local authority before he sets up a tribunal, whether in a progressive or in a reactionary area. The local authority should be consulted at least. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why, if they are agreed already?"] The tribunal is to be set up for dealing with this particular problem, and the local


authority has a right to be consulted because it is a local problem.
Local authorities in many areas have been dealing with it already. In my constituency the town council have dealt with the matter. First of all, they took up the attitude that there should be no sub-letting in council houses, and they prohibited it, but the influx of population became so great that they had to abandon that. Then the question of the fair amount that should be charged for subletting was raised, and it reached such a pitch as to create an outcry, with the result that the town council had to lay down a rule that no room in a council house should be let at more than 10s. a week. The thing has been going on, and something requires to be done, and I welcome the Bill for that reason. The point is a very narrow one. It is whether or not local authorities should be consulted, and I say they have a right to be consulted. I suppose that if these bodies were called local soviets, they would be worthy of being consulted, but because they are town or county councils they are not to be trusted.

Mr. Gallacher: The meaning of soviet is council. It is the same thing in a different language.

Mr. Watson: Yes, and evidently the word makes a lot of difference. If a local soviet is to be trusted, I am prepared to say that a local town or county council, even if it is reactionary, has a right to be consulted. I hope the Secretary of State will stand by the Bill as drafted, because without the co-operation of the local authorities the Measure will not be as effective as it might be. We want it to be effective, and undoubtedly it will be more effective if local authorities are consulted both with regard to the setting-up of tribunals and taking an active interest in their work. Clerks will have to be appointed, and I dare say they will be drawn from the offices of the town or county council. More than likely facilities will have to be provided for the meetings of the tribunals, again by the town or county councils. Why the personnel of the tribunals should be more or less drawn from the local authorities or from the local authorities' areas and the local authorities themselves ignored and the whole power retained in the hands of the central Executive, is more than I can understand. I am very jealous of power

retained in the hands of the central Government. I want to see more in the hands of the local authorities and less in the hands of the central Government.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken. Unfortunately I have not had the benefit of experience in serving on a local authority, and I am very sorry for it, but I represent an area containing more independent individual local authorities than any other area in Scotland. We have 21 or 22 small burghs, not to mention the county council, and I may as well tell the Committee plainly that if any suggestion such as this were embodied in the Bill for giving the Secretary of State power to come into any of these local authority areas and undertake a Measure of this kind without consultation, the whole of those local authorities would be up in arms against him, and I should be proud to take part in the controversy. There is too much dictation to local authorities by the central authority. I would give the local authorities much more power. I would give Scottish local authorities the same power as is possessed in England, where cases of this kind can be taken to the magistrates, and that would have the same good effect in Scotland as it has had in England. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not adopt that course. I sincerely trust that he will stand by the Bill.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): We have had another wide Debate upon a very narrow point, whether or not the Secretary of State should consult with the local authorities in any area before a tribunal is set up. It is not provided that the local authority will have any right of veto on whether a tribunal shall or shall not be set up. That power is vested in the Secretary of State. What is involved is that the Secretary of State shall set up tribunals where he is satisfied that they are required, after consultation with the local authority. I should have thought that the reasons for this provision were pretty obvious. First, I think there is great substance in the fact that the local authorities in respect of some of their functions complain that they are dying the Chinese death by a thousand cuts. I do not think that that is right. I believe that the less centralised bureaucracy and the more local democracy that you can have, the better. We insert this Clause


because we want to preserve local democracy in every way we can. We want the aid of the local authorities in carrying out the functions of the Bill. It is not only the suggestions that the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) put up which will require to be considered. For example, there will be the choice of meeting places for the tribunal. Centralised direction from St. Andrew's House will not get us an appropriate meeting place in a local council chamber, save with the good will of the council, or unless we take specific powers to order it. We shall also require clerical assistance, and in some areas we may require aid from the sanitary inspectors and from the staff of the medical officer of health, and much will depend upon good will.

Mr. Sloan: That is all after the setting-up of the tribunal.

Mr. Johnston: No, not at all. All these things must be taken into consideration before it is decided whether we will have the tribunal in "X" area or in an amalgamation of areas. The hon. Member for South Aryshire (Mr. Sloan) will observe that this Clause has another sub-section which provides that if the Secretary of State so directs the same tribunal may act for more than one area. Therefore, it may be necessary for us to persuade a local authority in one area to make its meeting place, its staff and so on available for wider areas than are covered by its own boundaries. Further, all the local authority associations are supporting this Bill. I do not say that means that all the individual units in those associations support the Bill, certainly not, but it shows that we are starting out with the associated goodwill of the local authorities, and my own view is that it is highly desirable to get the assistance of local staffs, local meeting places and all the rest of it, and that can only be done if we at any rate consult them. We might have said in the Bill that we would plank down these local rent courts willy-nilly, but it is to be noted that there are other functions—billeting, requisitioning and the like—for which the help of the local authorities may be needed. While it is not essential that the local authorities should consent, I hope and believe that we shall get the goodwill of the large majority of local authorities in Scotland; and for the black sheep, the authorities which will not co-operate or

help to make the Bill work, we still have power through central direction to make it work. I trust that after these explanations the Committee will agree to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: As the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) has said, all that the Secretary of State has been arguing about deals with the situation that will arise after the decision has been made to set up a tribunal. All this talk about local authorities having to lend their officials is based on the fact that a decision will already have been taken to set up a tribunal in a certain part of the area and to bring other areas within its jurisdiction. The right hon. Gentleman has not put forward a solitary argument to justify the retention of the words to which we are objecting. If they were omitted there would be nothing to prevent the Secretary of State doing everything which he has suggested—meeting local authorities and, if they are reluctant, trying to persuade them, in cases where it is a question of a tribunal covering several areas.
I should like to say to the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson) before he goes away that I hope we shall get such support for democracy on other Amendments. I am afraid that if the Secretary of State opposes his Amendment the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs will change the character of his democratic sentiments; but about that we shall see. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) has had an apprenticeship in a local authority, and according to his presentation of the case that seems to give him rights over and above those of other hon. Members. After an apprenticeship in local authority work the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire and the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs seem to think they are supporting democracy when they say there must be consultation with the local authorities, whether that be necessary or not. That is not supporting democracy; that is making a laughing stock of democracy. Nobody can say there is any justification for a discussion with the local authorities if such a discussion is not necessary, because it would be a waste of time. If we omit the words in the Amendment there will be nothing to prevent the Secretary of State discussing with any local authority any of the questions which he raised here. We do not want to divide the Committee on this


question. We have made our protest against the character of this legislation and against the undesirability of inserting words which are not necessary and will only delay the operation of the Measure. Accordingly we will withdraw the Amendment.—

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after "force," to insert:
and also for Scotland as a whole.
This Amendment, which stands in the name of myself and other hon. Members, refers to an additional tribunal, a central tribunal, and there are certain consequential Amendments.—In Clause 1, page 1, line 14, after "Tribunal," to insert:
for each such area, and also a Central Appeal Tribunal for Scotland as a whole.
and in Clause 1, page 1, line 18, after "Tribunal," to insert:
other than the Central Appeal Tribunal.
which I take it I should be in Order in referring to.

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to discuss those consequential Amendments, which cover practically the same point, at the same time, and if it is the wish of the Committee that that should be done, I shall allow it.

Major Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and those Members of the Committee who did me the honour of listening to my remarks upon the Second Reading of the Bill will not be surprised that I have put down these Amendments and that they are supported by my hon. Friends. The issue which I tried to emphasise in that speech is, in my opinion, an extremly far-reaching one. There is no one in the Committee who does not approve of the major objects of the Bill and does not wish to do away with the terrible racketeering which exists in certain parts of Scotland, and notably in Glasgow, but with these tribunals very substantial injustices may be committed, and I am convinced that the Bill will be a very deficient one unless we introduce some form of appeal. Nobody will deny that the tribunals will consist of worthy and sincere people, but they will be amateurs, and with the best will in the world they will

be liable to errors of judgment and they may from time to time give decisions which will show a very substantial lack of uniformity. As rents in various areas do vary substantially that might not be very serious, but they may also be guilty of lack of uniformity from the point of view of fairness. If the Bill were intended solely to catch those who have been profitteering grossly at the expense of the needs of the people, those who, as the Secretary of State has told us, have been letting as furnished rooms what is only the most pitiable subterfuge for a furnished room and charging abominably high rents, I should not be in the least concerned, because they would deserve all they got, but I suggest that as the Bill is framed it will also bring into the net those who cannot in any way be accused of trying to profiteer.
It is because I believe that inevitably the Bill may raise the whole question of settled contracts in connection with furnished houses and that there is no appeal against what may be unfair decisions that I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give me some satisfaction on the question of an appeal. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a Service man went out to the Middle East in 1940, leaving a little house rented at £24 or £30 a year. He and his wife had settled themselves there and got the house nicely furnished, putting all their savings into it and all their wedding presents, making it a comfortable home with, perhaps, brand new furniture. He being away at the war and his wife, perhaps, called up or taking some war work at another place, they decide to let the house furnished. It may be they let it in 1940 and the tenant has been occupying it ever since. Nobody can say that it is not a house which is furnished satisfactorily, but the tenant, after this lapse of three years, may suddenly decide—and why should he not?—to try to get the rent reduced under this Bill. It seems unfair that this Bill should open a way to the upsetting of all the contracts which serving men and serving women may have made two or three years ago for the letting of their little furnished houses, of which they are so proud, with their own precious furniture in them. The tribunal may reduce the rent quite substantially without the serving man having any real opportunity of meeting the issue, because both he and his wife may both be away and unable to put their case


adequately before the tribunal. And there is to be no appeal. The tribunal gives the final word, the record is on the books, and there is to be no alteration.
I suggest that it was never intended that the Bill should cover this type of case. I feel that my right hon. Friend failed to realise, while trying to catch those who are criminally exploiting the people, that he would also bring within the Measure cases such as I have outlined, of which there must be many. It may be possible to argue that it is not necessary to have an appeal tribunal, because if any individual is not satisfied with the verdict of the tribunal—which I still suggest will not necessarily be an expert tribunal, but composed of quite ordinary persons, who may definitely lack a sense of fairness—he can ask his Member of Parliament to raise the matter either by a question in the House or by a letter to the Secretary of State.
What can the Secretary of State do about it? He cannot sack the tribunal on the spot just because one or two Members of Parliament complain, and in any case the complaints will be some time after the decision has been made. The decision will have been written into the archives of the local authority. There is no appeal to the Secretary of State under the Bill or to anyone. The decision of the tribunal is final, although it may cause great dissatisfaction among perfectly decent people. There is no redress. If we ask questions of the Secretary of State, he may reply, "I am sorry, but under the Bill which you passed, I have no powers in the matter. It does sound from what you say as though the tribunal has been a bit unfair, but I can do nothing about it."
I warn the Committee that they are allowing a Bill to go through which covers a field that we never intended to cover. The Bill is admirable in principle, and we all fully sympathise with and welcome the principle, but it is essential that some appeal tribunal should be included in the Bill to safeguard against cases of injustice, it is essential that something should be done. I am sure that the principle is sound, and I am convinced also that no hon. Member who has listened to me would not realise that there is a strong point in what I have said. None of us has the slightest sympathy for the racketeer. Let him take what is coming to

him; but the kind of person of whom I am thinking is not protected under the Bill as it stands at present.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I wish to support very briefly the Amendment so ably proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend. I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is only reasonable, on the broadest legal grounds, that there should be some overriding or appeal tribunal for persons who are dissatisfied with decisions of local tribunals. It would be a very reasonable and valuable safeguard, especially in view of the fact that these tribunals are an entirely new and untried factor in our national life. Secondly, it may well be that by having a central appeal tribunal the decisions of the latter will be of great assistance to the local tribunals in introducing some uniformity into their decisions, although there must always be divergencies in different parts of the country. Their decisions would also be of benefit in giving guidance available to the local tribunals in dealing with border-line cases. For those two reasons I would urge the Secretary of State to consider the acceptance of the Amendment, which I am convinced would strengthen the Bill.

Mr. Johnston: I am sure that everyone will agree with the Mover of the Amendment that the greatest possible care must be taken in the operation of the Bill so that injustices do not occur. We do not want to obliterate one group of injustices by creating others. The sole point we have in mind at this moment is whether injustices can substantially be prevented by the creation of a central or appeal tribunal against the decisions of the local tribunals. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that this problem worried us for months before the Bill was introduced. We have come to the conclusion that the disadvantages of an appeal tribunal outweigh its advantages, as I will try to explain in a moment, and that there is some kind of protection now against gross or continued unfairness on the part of the local tribunals.
Let us take the question of the appeal tribunal. There would be delay. First of all, the Amendment allows 21 days for the appeal. After that, the tribunal might very well take a fortnight, as a minimum, to reach its decision. During that period, what rent is to be payable? Is it to be the rent fixed by the local authority, or


is the rent to be held in suspense until the appeal tribunal comes to its decision? Then the central tribunal will be called upon to decide questions of fact with less local knowledge than is possessed by the local tribunal. It would either have to send an official to inspect premises or it would itself have to travel. In either case, it would not have the same local knowledge as the local tribunal. If it sent an official to inspect the premises, it would then appear as if one official might overturn the decision of the local tribunal, and that would cause resentment. If, on the other hand, the central tribunal had to visit all the cases where an original decision had been taken and was now subject to appeal, there would be extensive delay, to say nothing of the costs and hardship to the appellant.
Another point that the hon. and gallant Member may have overlooked is, Who art the people to be affected by the Bill? There are, broadly speaking, two categories. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of the domestic tenant, but what about the commercial tenant, the man or syndicate who buys up houses, and lets them out? Those are the people who for the most part are exacting unconscionable rents. What is to be done with those people? They have money. They can afford to clutter up the appeal tribunal. The poor sub-tenant, literally the poorest of the poor, and the most helpless of the helpless, is unable to find the necessary wherewithal, legal skill or travelling expenses to go to the appeal tribunal. Therefore there is a mass of difficulty in the way of accepting the idea of a central tribunal, or more than one central tribunal. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend does not shut his eyes to the practical difficulties.

Major Lloyd: I hope that my right hon. Friend does not shut his eyes to the question of justice.

Mr. Johnston: I am coming to that point in a moment. I am merely saying that my hon. and gallant Friend has his share of responsibility like the rest of us, and I am sure that he is not shutting his eyes to what is likely to happen in the event of central tribunals being set up. There would be delay and cost. They would be taken advantage of by the more unscrupulous exploiters of the people, and there would be great hardship as a

result. What are the possible safeguards? One of them is that if a tribunal gives an unsatisfactory decision, I mean a foolish decision, the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the operation of that tribunal, can be challenged in this House. He will take the greatest possible care, of course, to select the personnel of the tribunals so that an unsatisfactory decision, or series of decisions, will not be given. Inasmuch as the whole intention of the Bill is to remedy injustice, I am sure that the greatest care will be taken in the selection of the tribunals.
Under Clause 6 (b), the Secretary of State may make a regulation with regard to the proceedings before the tribunals. The Lord Advocate and myself will be delighted to receive ideas and assistance as to the sort of direction we can give to the chairmen of these tribunals to ensure that injustices are not created. Of course, we are entering upon uncharted seas here, and nobody knows better than I do that we might quite well make blunders. If the Bill does not work, and the injustices are so clamant and the wrongs to be righted are so enormous, we shall have no hesitation in coming back to this House for renewed and amended powers—apart, of course, from the legislation which this House must enact regarding the Rent Restrictions Acts. I do not want to enter into the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend as to why the law differs as between Scotland and England. I have a very valid answer on that point. I would put this to him, that there have been no High Court decisions in England, as there has been in Scotland. [Interruption.] I am only speaking in respect of what the High Court in Scotland has decreed. I put it to the Committee that it is not desirable that by a side wind in a Measure of this kind we should seek to enter into the great ramifications of the very complex legislation which is called the Rent Restrictions Acts. We have been trying to keep this matter simple. Here is the idea of a rent court to fix a fair and just rent for a sub-tenant of furnished apartments. We hope it will work. For the reasons I have just given we will take every possible precaution to see that it will work, but if there should be any loopholes on the one side or the other, we shall have no hesitation whatever in coming back to Parliament to get an Amendment.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: What is the difficulty in the way of the right hon. Gentleman instructing his Law Officers to introduce a word other than "extortionate," which was the word which the High Court in Scotland turned down? Surely, if he says he has the powers, he could do that, which would largely solve the problem with which we are concerned.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I can assure the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) that that has been carefully considered. That is not the only difficulty about the enforcement of Section 10 of the Rent Restrictions Act. We came across very serious practical difficulties which arise out of our system of prosecution in Scotland and which are peculiar to Scotland, I can assure him that no alteration of the one word "extortionate" would solve the problem.

Major Lloyd: Like the rest of the Committee, I have a great admiration for my right hon. Friend's forensic abilities, but I have never heard him on a weaker wicket than that he was on a minute or two ago. With the greatest respect, it was intensely obvious to me that he was a very unhappy man. He confessed at the beginning that those who framed this Bill have been unhappy about the very issue I have raised. I think my right hon. Friend will continue to be unhappy, because he knows that in this particular respect this Bill is most defective, and no amount of talk or argument can obliterate that fact. We are about to do something in Scotland in order to crush and mitigate an undoubted evil which, whether the right hon Gentleman likes it or not, will create further evils and injustices to honest people. I would like to take up one or two points he made. They were perfectly fair arguments, but I think they could be countered at least to some extent.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that by having an appeal tribunal there would be undue delay. In one of my consequential Amendments I suggest that the appeal should be made to the tribunal within 21 days. He suggested that a decision might take another fortnight. I do not dispute that. That is five or six weeks, but I do not see why, because it might take five or six weeks to get justice there if the local tribunal has made an unfair decision, that there is any reason

whatever for ruling out an appeal tribunal. There are appeals to justice in every other sphere of life, most of which take a good deal longer than six weeks, but they are absolutely essential in order that justice should be done. I appreciate the point which the right hon. Gentleman went on to make that this appeal might be difficult with regard to the question of high rent which would go on while the appeal was being heard. As my hon. Friend knows, I am not interested in the case of the profiteer in this matter, but even then the decision of the tribunal could surely be made retrospective without much difficulty to the date of the local tribunal's decision? I see no reason why that interval should be used as an excuse for the sub-tenant to be charged extra rent. Why could not the appeal tribunal make its decision retrospective to the date that the local tribunal made a decision? Surely that is not an insuperable difficulty. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate could surely think out words which would easily meet that particular point.
Another point my right hon. Friend made was the question that the appeal tribunal might have to make visits all over Scotland to visit furnished rooms or furnished houses and that that would be very difficult and inconvenient and a most elaborate process. I suggest that he made the very most of that argument, because I cannot believe that except on the very rarest occasion it would be necessary for the appeal tribunal to make a visit at all. Surely all the facts will have been written down. There will be no necessity to go and inspect the houses in such circumstances, just as in nearly every appellate court case the judges do not have to go and inspect the situation except very rarely. The whole thing is on paper and can be examined by the appeal tribunal sitting where it is. While I appreciate the possibility in some special case that a visit might be necessary of the appeal tribunal's officer to report to them, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has laboured the point and that very rarely would it happen, and very often the tribunal would decide on the facts presented to it. I and those who are interested would ask for this assurance. I feel sure there are very many more in this Committee interested than have put their names to my Amendment, and


it is a very vital principle I am speaking for. I would ask the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate to get their heads together between now and the Report stage and give some kind of assurance that this matter will be looked into to see whether something can be done about it. It seems impossible to me that this Committee could pass a Bill of this character without giving any right of appeal whatever to an aggrieved party.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and gallant Member has raised one other point about which I think it is right I should say a word. He says: "Why cannot the cases taken to the appeal tribunal be dealt with on the papers?" That opens up a most alarming prospect to me. I had contemplated procedure under this Bill as being entirely informal and that there would be no record of any sort, at least no sufficient record of what takes place before the regional tribunal to enable the case to be presented as an appeal to a central tribunal. It would have to be a complete re-hearing, because there would be no material to reproduce in papers and to put before the court, and accordingly one or other of two things would necessarily happen. Either you would have to complicate and expand the procedure before the local tribunal so as to get in every case sufficient material for an appeal on written papers, and that would so cumber the procedure, make it so expensive, that I doubt whether it would work; or you would have to have a complete re-hearing. In these matters it is felt that the evidence could best be heard after a visit to the premises the rent of which is in dispute, and I do assure the hon. and gallant Member that unless we are to make the proceedings in the local tribunal far too formal, it would in the majority of cases at least be essential for the central tribunal to inspect the premises and go into the whole matter for itself. That is one of the reasons why in our view a central tribunal is likely to be so cumbersome that we should not adopt it at this stage unless experience shows that it is absolutely indispensible in order that justice should be done.

Major Lloyd: I feel very unhappy and dissatisfied, but in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I just be allowed a word upon this? The Committee were very good to permit me to speak slightly out of Order previously, and I do not wish to take up unnecessary time. But I feel in honour bound to put to the Committee in a word or two the fears I have about the provisions of this Clause. It is the operative Clause of the Bill, and it is right that the Committee should consider what it is doing. Since the Second Reading of the Bill I have made one or two journeys to Scotland. I have met a number of people, some of them among the most enlightened public men in the country. They have expressed to me very serious concern as to the possible effects of this Measure, attractive as it may seem on this Floor. We are all anxious to prevent exploitation, but what affects these men is the possibility that in dealing with this narrow point we shall work wholesale havoc upon tenants in many other parts of the country.

Mr. Buchanan: Who are these enlightened men the hon. Member has been meeting?

Mr. Stewart: It is not the habit in this Committee to give the names of persons in such circumstances, but I have been in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Fife, and I have met people there who I think the Committee will agree with me are men of considerable public experience.

Mr. Buchanan: I do not wish to be unfair, but it might help my judgment if. I knew who they were. I too know Glasgow, and I am wondering who were the enlightened men the hon. Member could meet whom I did not meet.

Mr. Stephen: Is it not the custom of the Committee that if a Member is challenged on a statement he gives the names?

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Member asks for authority for the fear I am proceeding to express, it is here in a whole series of Government Committees' Reports. It is here, for example, in the Report of the Marley Inter-departmental Committee on the Rent Restrictions Act. Lord Marley presided, and its members included one or two other Socialists who with one exception signed the Majority Report, which said:


Control of rent without protection from eviction would in our view be ineffective (and the reasons why protection from eviction cannot be given have already been indicated).
That is the trouble. That is not only the view of Lord Marley and his friends. My friends in the L.C.C. tell me that it is Lord Latham's most considered view that any Measure of this kind controlling rents without also controlling the powers of eviction, which I contend cannot be controlled in any such Measure, is not practicable. I beg the Committee, before passing blithely forward with this Bill, to take into account the long series of warnings given to this Committee by most capable people against doing what this Bill seeks to do.

The Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman is arguing the Bill as a whole, and that, of course, is not in Order. We are only dealing with Clause 1, which deals merely with the question of the application of the Act to certain areas.

Mr. Stewart: I give this warning; if in a year's time it is found that, far from helping those you seek to help, you have dispossessed hundreds of tenants, do not blame me.

Mr. Mathers: I hope and believe that the Committee will retain this Clause. I am glad that the obvious intention of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) to hamstring the Bill completely and make it unworkable, has failed. He pleaded that, owing to his illiteracy, he had not got the Amendment put down at the proper place; but, while we accept that confession we recognise the very great astuteness he has shown in using the opportunity of what purported to be a limited Amendment to put forward proposals which, in my judgment, would have completely prevented this Bill from being of any use at all.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Reference to Tribunal of contracts for furnished letting.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out "attendance," and to insert "services."
This Amendment is a little technical, and requires explanation. The Rent Restrictions Acts excluded cases where pre-

mises are let with any substantial amount of furniture or attendance. The word "attendance" is not defined, and it is not easy to say just what it means. In drafting this Bill we desired not to overlap the Rent Restrictions Acts, but rather to bring in a complementary Bill which would catch the cases that escape from the Rent Restrictions Acts, and we used the words "furniture or attendance." On second thoughts, we felt that, although logically correct, that might cause considerable difficulties. The courts in England have held, and I have no reason to think that the courts in Scotland would not follow their example, that certain types of service cannot be held to be attendance. It has been decided, indeed, that if you carry coal upstairs to your tenant it is attendance, but if you put the coal in the boiler downstairs and the tenant draws off hot water upstairs, that is not attendance. If we leave the Bill in its present form there will be considerable difficulties for people who try to determine which of the two Acts they come under. They may get into embarrassing positions. We think it better to expand the protection of the Act to a slight extent. I do not think that it will make a difference in many cases but it may in some. At present the Bill leaves out that type of case where there is an unfurnished let with no attendance, but with services other than attendance. We define services, in an Amendment which is to be moved on Clause 9, to include
attendance, the provision of heating or lighting, the supply of hot water and any other privilege or facility connected with the occupancy of a house or part of a house.
So we are taking in cases where there are services other than attendance, and no furniture. Although this may not be entirely justifiable in logic, it will save considerable embarrassment when unskilled people are considering their position.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Provision as to powers and expenses of local authorities.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, at the end, to insert:


(2) A local authority shall have power to publish information regarding the provisions of this Act.
There is already power under the Rent Restrictions Acts for local authorities to publish information about the rights of people under those Acts. We think it very desirable, if the new provisions in this Bill are to become widely known, that similar authority should be given to local authorities to publish information about these provisions.

Mr. McKinlay: I must again express my regret that the Secretary of State stopped short where he has done. I should have tried, at least, to put in a manuscript Amendment, providing that the local authorities shall have power to compel the registration of all such premises. That would not only strengthen the hands of the local authorities, but would give a much-needed jumping-off ground for the tribunal. I am still of the view that such a registration is necessary, but the Secretary of State, I know, is willing to give an undertaking that if the position proves to be unsatisfactory he will not hesitate to take powers to correct it. I think, however, that registration is the kernel of the whole problem.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McNeil: There is one small point I want to raise. The power of the local authority is defined in Subsection (1) of this Clause. It is made clear in the previous Clause that the tribunal will be expected to make a specification of the premises which are registered. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is always a most tricky business to make an entry into a house. Of course, the circumstances are different with commercial premises, but in law it is difficult to enter into a house. Yet it seems that specifications cannot be made unless such an entry is effected. Under this Clause, the local authority may delegate powers to an officer, and I should like the Lord Advocate to tell us whether he anticipates that this officer will have the right to effect an entry into a home when part of that home is to be registered. I am not attempting to make difficulties, but I think the Committee should have advice on this matter,

because it is a most delicate business to extend the powers of entry into private dwellings.

The Lord Advocate: This precise point had not occurred to me, and I will look into it in detail, but I think I can give this answer at the moment. If the hon. Member will look at the latter part of Sub-section (1) of Clause 2, he will find that when a matter is referred to the tribunal it is the duty of the lessor to give such information as the tribunal may reasonably require. Obviously, if a lessor withholds facilities for getting proper information, the tribunal is more likely to decide doubtful points against him than if he is entirely candid and allows full inspection. I do not think there is anything in the Bill which confers right of entry upon an officer which he would not otherwise have, and I am not sure that there should be any such power. I will certainly look into the point.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7—(Offences.)

Mr. McGovern: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end, to add:
(3) When any contract to which the Act applies is referred or was referred to a tribunal it shall be an offence for the lessor to give notice of the termination of the tenancy without the consent of the tribunal and any lessor guilty of such offence shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
The Bill shows that there is an evil which needs to be rectified. We are inviting people who feel that they are harshly treated by being charged exhorbitant rents to come before the tribunal to lodge their complaint in the manner prescribed. The tribunal having dealt with the offences, whether or not they find the complaint justified, the sub-tenant is liable to be thrown on to the street by the person against whom he complained. That is a serious matter, and something should be devised to deal with it. You are setting up machinery and inviting people to complain about injustice, and it looks as if they will then be the victims of the spleen of the persons against whom they have complained. That is not a fairy tale. We all know that people are liable


to do such things. I see numerous difficulties about establishing protection, but some measure of protection should be given to people who lodge justifiable complaints about extortionate rents. We do not see any measure of protection given under the Bill, but if there is some protection that we have not been able to notice, we shall be glad to hear what it is. The Bill fails in that it only partially protects the people who suffer an injustice and leaves them to the mercy of these undesirable individuals. I will leave it for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make any explanation that he may wish to give.

Mr. Stephen: I support the Amendment. One of the points made by the Lord Advocate on the Second Reading when this topic was mentioned was that he should not do anything to destroy the ordinary normal lettings. I do not think that if the Amendment is accepted it will do anything that will make those lettings difficult at all. The tribunal will give their consent practically automatically for the termination of such tenancies. The Secretary of State for Scotland could cover the position under Clause 6 by means of regulations in regard to normal cases where there is no extortion or question of rent difficulty arising. Without the Amendment or some form of protection which is not given in the Bill, the Measure would appear to be nothing more than either a dead letter or a trap for simple, innocent people. I can imagine persons coming before the tribunal and making out a good case that they have been grossly overcharged and afterwards finding themselves put out of their rooms by the occupier. They will come to us and say, "We went to the tribunal in good faith and obtained a decision in our favour and now we find ourselves without any place in which to live and with no roof over our heads." The Lord Advocate says that there is a protection in the background and that if that happens and they come back the local authority or the Government can requisition the premises. Is that not a tremendously cumbersome process?
When you requisition premises you again open up many questions of law. If you are to have good faith with the people who are supposed to benefit by this Bill, it is absolutely imperative that

they should have some form of protection. If the determination of the tenancy is a power to be entrusted to, and dependent upon, the tribunal, you are in a different position altogether. It has been stated from the Government Front Bench that the class of case with which this Measure is to deal is where big houses have been divided into apartments, furnished and let to very poor people, who are being exploited in the most shameful way. The Amendment would make it impossible for the exploiters to get away with their extortion by threatening to evict their sub-tenants. In thousands of other cases where the tenancy was a really definite, ordinary, kindly transaction or the normal thing there would be no difficulties resulting from the Amendment at all. I am confident that no difficulties would arise as a result of ordinary decent people letting their rooms. Those cases will not go to the tribunals. The rents they will be charging will be the ordinary rents and be considered legitimate, and the contracts will not come before the tribunal, and the tenancies can be terminated without any of these difficulties arising. But in the hellish cases of the commercial exploitation of homeless people, such people are entitled to protection.
There was one other point which was made to me by the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) when he was speaking to me about the Amendment. Take a commercial exploitation case, say, where there is a big house occupied by five people and one of the tenants goes to the tribunal and tries to make out his case that the people in the house are being overcharged. He finds that the other four tenants come as witnesses for the landlord. They have been told, "I shall expect you to come and help me at the tribunal. I have given you this tenancy although there are scores of people who want to get in here, and I expect you to come as a witness for me. Some people may think the rent is high, but think of the difficulties I have had in putting in furniture, and it must be remembered that there is a war on." These people then say, "We will come, Mr. A." They appear before the tribunal, and they say, "We believe we are being fairly treated here. The rent may seem a bit high but it is difficult to get a place." Thus it is made incredibly difficult for an applicant who wants to get the extortion stopped.


Then he is put out. The Bill as it stands puts all these people at the mercy of the lessor or landlord, or tenant who is subletting part of a house, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment. They can make a regulation under Clause 6 to deal with the working of the new Sub-section that we propose, and I hope that something will be done to give a real protection to the tenants.

Mr. McNeil: I shall be a little less than generous if I do not acknowledge to my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and admit that the point I made to him has been embellished with a great amount of detail to which I could not possibly aspire. I want substantially to support the principle which is behind the Amendment. I would not want to support the Amendment as it stands for two reasons. It would be exceedingly dangerous to extend the power of the tribunal to the extent that they became not only a rent assessing tribunal but actually were given the powers of a Scottish court. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) does not seem to think that it would do that, but I imagine that it would. If you say the tribunal shall have the power to determine whether a let shall be terminated or continued, you are giving it the power which is within the province of the sheriff court.
As the hon. Member for Camlachie indicated, there are some difficulties in the sub-letting of a genuine dwelling house, but if the substance of the Amendment is to be applied only to the commercially-let houses, that is, the large house which is bought for the one purpose of sub-division and for sub-letting as furnished apartments, I cannot see either that there will be any great hardship inflicted upon the tenant-in-chief or that there will be any great amount of difficulty. On the Second Reading I interrupted the Lord Advocate to put that point to him and I do not think he addressed himself to that point. Having re-read and reconsidered the position, and having had discussions outside this House, I am almost driven to conclude that there is some political reason behind the Government's unwillingness to accept some Amendment of this nature. All that Members on this side of the Committee have been asking is that the security of the Rent Act which was extended to an unfurnished sub-letting

should be similarly extended to a furnished sub-letting where that sub-let is a part of a commercially acquired, divided and sub-let house. The reasons upon which a court normally allots re-possession to the tenant-in-chief of an unfurnished sub-let are plain—non-payment of rent, illegal misuse of the sub-let, the creation of a nuisance, termination of the let by the sub-tenant, the sub-letting of the sub-tenancy without permission by the sub-tenant, and the reasonable need by the tenant-in-chief for his own or his family's use. I argue that no undue hardship is being placed on the tenant-in-chief. As it is, very great hardship is forced upon the abject sub-tenant, who is the most insecure and the most miserable person in all our population.
The need for protecting the sub-tenant is, of course, acknowledged by the Bill itself. Although it does not give him any direct protection it gives him a little. No one doubts the earnestness of the Secretary of State in seeking to give the subtenant some kind of status in law, but our fear is that the protection which it was found so necessary to extend to the unfurnished sub-tenant, will be equally necessary for the furnished sub-tenant, that any rent-fixing machinery will not be complete without the security in law which has been extended to the unfurnished sub-tenant. I am sure no one on the other side of the Committee will suspect me of wanting to make trouble, but if the Lord Advocate would explain what are the difficulties in law or in administration in making applicable a substantially similar Amendment to the commercial sub-let, then I, for one, would listen carefully. Perhaps I have been stupid or have not read or listened carefully enough, but I still have a suspicion at the back of my mind that the Government see some political and not legal or administrative reason for refusing this or a similar Amendment.

The Lord Advocate: May I answer the question which has been put to me by the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil)? I remember that during the Second Reading Debate he and another Member asked a question, and I agree that I did not fully answer my hon. Friends on that occasion. The difficulty as I see it is to find a clear definition of the class of let which, my hon. Friends would agree,


ought not to have security of tenure imposed upon it. It is essential if you are not to frighten the domestic landlady that any security of tenure should be so tightly limited by definition that no landlady could possibly imagine that if she took in a lodger there was a chance of a tribunal imposing that lodger upon her against her will for the duration of the war. Frankly, we have not been able to find a sufficiently clear distinction between the commercial type of let and the domestic type of let. Everything that has suggested itself to us has raised difficulties, and on the face of that I feel it would not be judicious at this stage, to say the least, to put in some provision which may lead domestic landladies to think they would perhaps have to keep their lodgers against their will.

Mr. Sloan: I would like to support this Amendment. In spite of the argument of the Lord Advocate, I think there is ground for reasonable protection if the Amendment were adopted. One can visualise quite easily that if an appeal to a tribunal is to be followed by eviction, tenants will be chary of making application to a tribunal. The Lord Advocate stated that the corrective was this, that if the tenant was ejected, the person letting would not get another tenant at a higher rent. The Lord Advocate seemed to think that that was some protection, but I do not think it is. Fear of eviction will be the greatest factor in preventing tenants from making applications to a tribunal. It would be very unfortunate if we were to remove one disease and only inflict another by the cure we are seeking to provide. The Amendment would meet to a large extent the objections which have been made, and I hope it will be accepted.

Mr. Johnston: With the spirit and intention of this Amendment we have no quarrel whatever. The sole question to which we have to address our minds is: What sort of protection can be given to any sub-tenant who may be evicted from his sub-tenancy because he dared to go to a tribunal to seek redress from extortion? This Amendment does vest in the tribunal powers which the Rent Restrictions Act have forbidden to the law courts, and that will raise further complications which we are anxious if we can to avoid. That, however, does not in any way absolve us from the duty of meeting the

sort of case which hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have put forward. I have discussed this matter personally with the town clerks of Glasgow, Edinburgh and other cities. We have sought to find by what means we could protect the sub-tenant who was threatened with eviction because he dared to go to a tribunal and at the same time not do something that would cause a limitation in the number of domestic lets which are unfortunately in these days the necessity of many thousands of peaple. That is the dilemma we are all in.
How do I suggest that we can protect these tenants against unfair treatment? First of all, may I direct attention to Defence Regulation 22, where there is power to billet a person in premises from which he is sought to be evicted? So far as I am concerned, I will take every possible step in my power to see that the intentions of Parliament are not rendered vain and that these billeting powers are exercised in appropriate cases. Further, if the billeting powers are insufficient, we can, by means of Defence Regulation 51, still fall back upon requisitioning. I can assure hon. Members that there need be no delay whatever in the exercise of billeting powers. I am told that a billeting officer can put in a billetee without infringing any of these powers or Orders. I do not say that that is desirable, and I do not want to put my case too high, but we have the responsibility of seeing that this thing works. We have powers to billet in any case where a tenant is sought to be unjustly evicted. How we contemplate operating is that if it is brought to the notice of the Secretary of State or to the local authorities—and I would prefer the latter—that a sub-tenant was sought to be evicted because of his appearance before a tribunal, we should get in touch with the chairman of the tribunal at once. If the evidence was sustained, we could exercise our billeting powers. That is a fairly substantial safeguard. It may not be complete—there is no complete safeguard to-day—but it is at any rate some safeguard against eviction because of an appearance before a tribunal. It also brings the tribunal into consultation on the matter, and while it does not vest in them legal powers of decision to prevent eviction, which are not given to the law courts, it brings them into consultation with the local authorities. In the exercise of these powers of billeting and


requisitioning we think that to a very considerable extent we can meet the apprehensions that hon. Members and all of us feel. For these reasons I would express the hope, that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. McGovern: We feel that the recommendations are not sufficient to prevent eviction. We have been blamed time and again for accepting from that Box pledges made regarding hardship committees, conscientious objectors' tribunals

Division No. 25.
AYES.



Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Kirkwood, D.



Buchanan, G.
Maxton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gallacher, W.
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)
Mr. McGovern and Mr. Stephen.


Harvey, T. E.
Sloan, A.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leach, W.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Lees-Jones, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Errington, Squadron-Leader E.
Levy, T.


Albery, Sir Irving
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Liddall, W. S.


Ammon, C. G.
Etherton, Ralph
Lindsay, K. M.


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ.)
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lipson, D. L.


Apsley, Lady
Everard, Sir W. Lindsay
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Ladywood)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fildes, Sir H.
Loftus, P. C.


Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.
Fleming, Squadron-Loader E. L.
Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard


Barr, J.
Fox, Flight-Lieut. Sir G. W. G.
Mabane, W.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Gammans, Capt. L. D.
McKie, J. H.


Beechman, N. A.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Magnay, T.


Beit, Sir A. L.
George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'b'ke)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Gibbins, J.
Manningham-Buller, Major R. E.


Benson, G.
Gibson, Sir C. G.
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Marshall, F.


Blair, Sir R.
Green, W. H. (Daptford)
Mathers, G.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Gretton, J. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)


Brocklebank Sir C. E. R.
Groves, T. E.
Mitchell, Colonel H. P.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Molson, A. H. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hammersley, S. S.
Montague, F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hannah, I. C.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry.


Bull, B. B.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Universities)


Burden, T. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Burke, W. A.
Hepworth, J.
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Hewlett, T. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cireneester)


Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)
Higgs, W. F.
Mort, D. L.


Cape, T.
Hinchinbrooke, Viscount
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)


Cary, R. A.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Naylor, T. E.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hollins, A. (Hanley)
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)


Charleton, H. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Oldfield, W. H.


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Cocks, F. S.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Culverwell, C. T.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Petherick, Major M.


Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Jeffreys, Gen, Sir G. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Jennings, R.
Peto, Major B. A. J.


De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Jewson, P. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
John, W.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Denville, Alfred
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'km'n)
Pym, L. R.


Dobbie, W.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Radford, E. A.


Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Joynson-Hicks, Lt. Comdr. Hn. L. W.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Keeling, E. H.
Rankin, Sir R.


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Keir, Mrs. Cazalet
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Eccles, D. M.
Kirby, B. V.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rickards, G. W.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Ritson, J.

and the like and have found that those pledges and assurances have not been carried out. If there was the will, means could be devised of giving the protection we want. Because we feel that the guarantees are not sufficient at present we propose to carry the matter to a Division.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 8; Noes, 229.

Roberts, W.
Stuart, Lord C. Chrichton- (Northwich)
Watkins, F. C.


Robertson, D. (Streatham)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Watson, W. McL.


Ross Taylor, W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)


Rowlands, G.
Sutcliffe, H.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.
Westwood, Rt. Han. J.


Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Taskar, Sir R. I.
White, H. (Derby, N. E.)


Salt, E. W.
Tate, Mavis C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blayden)


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Savory, Professor D. L.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)
Thomas, I. (Keighley)
Willink, H. U.


Selley, H. R.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)
Windsor, W.


Shakespeare, Sir G. H.
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)
Woodburn, A.


Shephard, S.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
Woolley, Major W. E.


Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.
Tinker, J. J.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Snadden, W. McN.
Touche, G. C.
Wright, Group Capt. J. (Erdingten)


Somerset, T.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.
York, Major C.


Southby, Comd. Sir A. R. J.
Turton, R. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Spearman, A. C. M.
Viant, S. P.



Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Wakefield, W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Ward, Cot. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Mr. Boulton and Mr. Drewe.


Strickland, Capt. W. F.
Waterhouse, Capt. C.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Interpretation and Saving.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end, to insert:
the expression 'services' includes attendance, the provision of heating or lighting, the supply of hot water and any other privilege or facility connected with the occupancy of a house or part of a house.
(2) Where separate sums are payable by the lessee of any premises to the lessor for any two or more of the following, namely:—
(a) occupation of the premises; (b) use of furniture; and (c) services; the expression 'rent' shall, in relation to those premises, mean the aggregate of those sums, and where such sums are payable under separate contracts, those contracts shall be deemed to be one contract.
This Amendment is, in part, consequential on an earlier Amendment which has been accepted and the second part is devised to prevent evasion by people putting into two or more documents what ought to be in one. Even if they do that, they are not to be able to evade the consequences of the Measure.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 25, leave out "tenant" and insert "lessee."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Short title, extent and duration).

Mr. Gallacher: I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, to leave out from "until" to the end of the Clause, and to add:
sufficient houses have been supplied to overcome the housing crisis.

I would point out that this Bill is distinct from the Rent Restrictions Acts, and whatever may be their fate when the war is over and the time comes for a reconsideration of the problem, the need for this Bill and for the tribunals will still exist. The injustices which the Bill seeks to remedy will remain until there are sufficient houses for the people, and therefore many of us on this side are of opinion that the Bill should continue in operation until there is a sufficiency of houses. We ask the Minister, if he cannot accept the Amendment, to think out before the Report Stage some other wording which will leave the Bill in operation far beyond six months after the cessation of hostilities.

The Lord Advocate: It is in our view essential that the Rent Restrictions Acts and this Measure should come to an end at the same time. The provisions of this Bill are designed to dovetail into the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and it would be most embarrassing if it was not possible for the draftsman of the new legislation, whatever it may be, not to have the whole field open to him. Hon. Members are aware that a committee is being set up to deal with the future of the Rent Restrictions Acts, Those Acts will, of course, have to be revised, and probably some further legislation introduced, and in our view it would be wrong to have any other time for the ending of this Measure than that which is already in the Act of 1939 for the ending of the Rent Restrictions Acts.

Mr. Gallacher: I beg to ask leave to wtihdraw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.—(Provisions regarding Constitution of Tribunals.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 5, line 3, to leave out from "Chairman," to "two," in line 4, and to insert "and."
During the Second Reading Debate there was some criticism of a provision in the Schedule under which the chairmen of the tribunals are required to be lawyers. We think there is considerable force in that criticism. In more outlying areas in particular it might be that there was a layman who would be more suitable as chairman than any lawyer who would be available, and therefore we are proposing this Amendment to make it possible to appoint as chairman whatever person the Secretary of State may select as most suitable.

Mr. Kirkwood: On behalf of my colleagues, I think we can say we accept the Amendment, which will save us moving our Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gallacher: I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, after "State," to insert "in consultation with the local authority."
Upon an earlier Amendment the democrats were very anxious to have democracy when it was the form of democracy without any content. They wanted to have consultations with the local authorities whether such consultations were necessary or not, and it is obvious that unnecessary consultations are not a help but a hindrance. Now the democrats, realising the fix they are in, have taken good care to relieve the Committee of their presence. One of them, I see, has returned and I think it would be gracious on my part to leave the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson) to make the arguments in support of this Amendment, for here is an Amendment dealing with the content of democracy, a case where consultation with the local authority is desirable over the setting up of the tribunal and arranging its personnel. A local authority will be capable of making suggestions or giving advice respecting particular individuals in the area who understand the problems which arise out of sub-letting. The earlier Amendment was form without content. Here we have an Amendment of a democratic character that deals with content, and I hope that the democrats, the hon.

Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay), the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs, the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) and the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart), who were so anxious to advertise their democracy, will be as vocal now as they were then.

The Lord Advocate: A little while ago the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) wanted us to leave out a provision at the beginning of the Bill that there should be consultation with the local authority, and now he wants us to put it in towards the end. We preferred it at the beginning and the Committee agreed, and we do not see any need to have it in twice. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that the Secretary of State has every intention of consulting with local authorities not only at this stage but at every relevant stage. One reason why it would not be suitable to insert this Amendment is that tribunals may act for more than one local authority's area, and it would be a little embarrassing, if a tribunal had been appointed first for one area and then we had to re-appoint it for another area, to have to go through the form of consultation with another local authority; but I can assure the hon. Member that there is every intention of taking local authorities with us and giving the fullest possible attention to their views.

Mr. Gallacher: If the meaningless words in Clause 1 which I proposed should be omitted had been left out, the Secretary of State would still have been able to consult with any and every local authority, but it was insisted that the words had to remain whether consultations were necessary or not. Here it is essential that the Secretary of State should have consultations with the local authorities, but now the Government are not prepared to put that in the Bill, but wish to leave it to his discretion. I want support for the local authorities and democracy.

Mr. Watson: I am sorry that I missed part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), but I am glad to know that at last he has come to recognise that local authorities should be consulted upon matters concerned with subletting. On Clause 1 he did not regard consultation with the local authorities as of much importance.

Mr. Gallacher: It was not necessary.

Mr. Watson: So long as the Secretary of State was prepared to issue orders for the setting-up of tribunals that was regarded as all that was necessary. On Clause 1 I put in a plea for consultation with the local authorities, and now my hon. Friend is advocating that local authorities should be consulted about other matters as well. I am quite willing that they should be consulted at all stages, and I am very glad that in the course of this Debate our friends have come back to the true democratic path.

Mr. Sloan: There is nothing in this Bill to indicate that the Secretary of State is to consult with anybody. The plain reading of it is that the chairman and the other members of a tribunal shall be appointed by the Secretary of State. Experience with other committees in Scotland appointed recently does not give Members of Parliament much reason to accept the bald statement from the Lord Advocate. A question was answered yesterday about the appointment of a chairman of some other body, and in that case the Secretary of State had the right to make the appointment without consulting anybody at all. The point raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson) is not an analogous one. What we discussed earlier was the appointment of tribunals, and there was no need for the local authorities to be consulted. Here we are placing arbitrary powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, and we cannot hind future Secretaries of State, whatever the present holder of the office may propose to do. It may be said in future to another Secretary of State, "A definite promise was given that before these things were done you would consult with the local authority," and he could reply, that that was a promise given by his predecessor and that he was not bound by it. Surely, we are having too many committees appointed. The first thing we see about them is in the newspapers, and goodness knows where the members are drawn from. Many of them have no administrative ability or ex-

Division No. 26.
AYES.



Bevan, A.
McGovern, J.
Stephen, C.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
McKinlay, A. S.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McNeil, H.
Watson W. McL.


Foster, W.
Maxton, J.



Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gallacher, W.
Sexton, T. M.
Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Sloan.

perience that can be seen. Yet we are powerless in the matter, because the Secretary of State has power to make the appointment. I hope that the addition of these few words will clarify the position and allay suspicion in regard to these appointments. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. McGovern: The Amendment is very reasonable and should be accepted. I do not support it in the spirit that members of the tribunals selected from the ranks of the working class will be more progressive than people from other ranks. I have had experience of both types, and sometimes the difference amazes me. In the tribunal in Edinburgh dealing with conscientious objectors the chairman is a real lord, Lord Elphinstone, and it would be difficult to get a fairer minded man in any part of the country. I have also gone before members of working-class bodies and found them thoroughly reactionary. I would prefer a man like Lord Elphinstone to, say, the Home Secretary, in charge of an appeal tribunal. There are many fair-minded people who could be appointed, in consultation with local authorities, who know the people in the area. I would ask the Lord Advocate to accept the Amendment.
If the Lord Advocate says that the Secretary of State intends to consult the local authorities, what is then objectionable about putting into the Bill the actual promise that is made? Sometimes personal promises are made on the Front Bench by Lord Advocates or Secretaries of State who are well-meaning and well-intentioned, but power passes from one party to another and then the authorities in the law courts say: "We have nothing to do with what was said in the House of Commons. The point is whether it is contained in the Act." If promises are made here that there will be consultation, they should be redeemed in the proper way, by being put into the Bill.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 15; Noes, 224.

NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gretton, J. F.
Rankin, Sir R.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Albery, Sir Irving
Groves, T. E.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Ammon, C. G.
Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Apsley, Lady
Hammersley, S. S.
Rickards, G. W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hannah, I. C.
Ridley, G.


Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Roberts, W.


Barr, J.
Holy-Hutchinson, M. R.
Robertson, D. (Streatham)


Barstow, P. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ross Taylor, W.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rowlands, G.


Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'ts'h)
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Beechman, N. A.
Hepworth, J.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Hewlett, T. H.
Salt, E. W.


Benson, G.
Higgs, W. F.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Barry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Hinchinbrooke, Viscount
Savory, Professor D. L.


Blair, Sir R.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Hollins, A. (Hanley)
Selley, H. R.


Boulton, W. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Shephard, S.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Boyce, H. (Leslie)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Shute, Col. Sir J. J.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Isaacs, G. A.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
James, Wing-Com. A. (Well'borough)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.
Snadden, W. McN.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Jennings, R.
Somerset, T.


Bull, B. B.
Jewson, P. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
John, W.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Burden, T. W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'km'n)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Butcher, H. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Keir, Mrs. Cazalet
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's.)
Summers, G. S.


Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sutcliffe, H.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Lawson, J. J.
Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.


Charleton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Chater, D.
Lees-Jones, J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Levy, T.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Colegate, W. A.
Lipson, D. L.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'thm'tn)


Conant, Major R. J. E.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Ladywood)
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Loftus, P. C.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard
Touche, G. C.


Culverwell, C. T.
Manningham-Buller, Major R. E.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Turton, R. H.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McKie, J. H.
Viant, S. P.


Denville, Alfred
Magnay, T.
Wakefield, W. W.


Dobbie, W.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.
Marshall, F.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.
Mathers, G.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Watkins, F. C.


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)
Mitchell, Colonel H. P.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Eccles, D. M.
Molson, A. H. E.
White, H. (Derby, N. E.)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Montague, F.
White H. Graham (Birkenhead E.)


Edwards Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Ellis, Sir G.
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mort, D. L.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Muff, G.
Willink, H. U.


Errington, Squadron-Leader E.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilmot, John


Etherton, Ralph
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
Windsor, W.


Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Woodburn, A.


Everard, Sir W. Lindsay
Perkins, W. R. D.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Fermoy, Lord
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Woolley, Major W. E.


Fleming, Squadron-Leader E. L.
Petherick, Major M.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Fox, Flight-Lieut. Sir G. W. G.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Wright, Group Capt. J. (Erdington)


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Peto, Major B. A. J.
York, Major C.


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Gibson, Sir C. G.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton



Gower, Sir R. V.
Radford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.
Mr. Pym and Mr. Drewe.


Greenwell, Col. T. G.
Ramsden, Sir E.

Amendment made: In page 5, line 9, leave out from the first "place," to the end of line 11.—[Mr. Johnston.]

TITLE.

Amendment made: In line 3, leave out "attendance," and insert "services."—[Mr. Johnston.]

Bill reported, with Amendment [Title amended]; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Lipson: I have only one regret to express in regard to this Bill. I will make it very briefly. It is that this Bill applies to Scotland only. I think it is unfortunate, when you have an evil which exists in Scotland and also in this country, that the proposed reform should be limited to Scotland only. I want to congratulate Scotland on taking effective measures dealing with this profiteering so far as furnished houses are concerned. If there are any means by which heads of other Departments can have their attention drawn to what other Ministers are doing, I hope that the Minister of Health will have his attention drawn to the fact that effective action is being taken in respect of Scotland to deal with an evil which is common to Scotland and England alike. I congratulate Scotland on the passing of the Bill, not without envy that similar measures are not being taken to deal with the matter in England.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland and his very able assistants on the fact that they have brought in such a Bill. I have offered a certain amount of criticism of the Bill, but that does not alter the fact that it is a very satisfactory attempt to deal with a great evil, and I hope that the results will be what the Secretary of State and his assistants and all the rest of us hope.

Mr. McNeil: I should also like to associate myself with what has been said, because I have offered criticisms, with the congratulations that have been offered to the Front Bench on this occasion. I hope that all my criticisms and my fears about the comparative ineffectiveness of the Bill are completely without foundation. I only wish to make three points before we part with the Bill. I hope that the Lord Advocate will not take at all lightly my fears about entry and that we shall have an assurance from him when we get the Measure back from another place. My other two points (Interruption). I am sorry some of my friends are a little impatient, but I would like to assure them that we have been speedy with this business. My only other two

points are that the Secretary of State, I know with the very best intentions, has assured us that the reinforcements he offers to the limitations of the Bill are that he may billet or requisition. He argued with force that the effectiveness of these emergency measures lies in the speed with which they can be operated. I know that this is a matter of considerable doubt. Therefore I am doing no more than asking my right hon. Friend to look again at the position and perhaps let us know his considered reflections upon it.
He referred us to Defence Regulation 51, under which he would have power to requisition. I know that I am very nearly out of Order, and I hate to see the troubled look on your face, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I hope that, since my right hon. Friend has made this almost an integral part of the Bill, you will allow me to tread daintily around the subject. As to power to requisition, the grounds on which he might do so are certainly wide enough, but I doubt how fast he can do that. As he will see under Subsection (6) (1a), there must be issued a certified copy of any direction to give up possession and so forth, the fact that a certified copy has to be made available to the proprietor or occupant does suggest some delay. Then the right hon. Gentleman said he believed he might billet almost at a moment's notice. I quite agree that our experience in emergency conditions has been that that could and did take place, but if my right hon. Friend will look at Section 9 of Defence Regulation 22, he will see:
.. any person who is aggrieved by the service upon him of a billeting notice …
I suggest that if there is a billeting notice, that notice must precede the billettee, and if there are provisions for the aggrieved person making an appeal, as we have known such appeals outside emergency conditions, it is very doubtful if my right hon. Friend or, by reason of his delegation, the local authorities, can act with such speed. I hope I shall not be thought ungenerous. I am most anxious that this Measure shall be most effective, and I hope my right hon. Friend can find ways to surmount these two difficulties.

Mr. Johnston: My competent assistants at the Scottish Office feel somewhat in the embarrassing position of having to beware when all men apparently speak well of them. That is somewhat of a pleasant


change from many experiences we have had. I have no reason whatever to question either the motives or the methods of hon. Members who have sought to improve this Bill, and indeed we welcome their attempts to improve the Bill. It is admittedly a matter a great complexity bound up with legal and other decisions. We had to walk very warily lest we did more harm than good, lest we limited the amount of accommodation that was to be available for sub-tenants. I think that on the whole we have managed. At all events, what we have done is to establish the principle of a rent court. That has been established with the general concurrence of all parties in this House—and that is most valuable—as it will, I hope, be operated in Scotland with the general concurrence and good will of all the local authorities in Scotland. If we can march forward on the lines of remedying injustice by these methods, I think we go very much further than if we seek to go along controversial and party lines.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) raised two points. He queries first of all our interpretation of Defence Regulation 51. He sought to draw attention, I think, to page 168, where we were compelled to serve a certified copy of any direction to give up possession and so on. He said that that involves delay, but he will observe that that is in the case where we are serving a warrant for ejection. This is not the case that we envisage at all. We are not wanting to serve a notice of ejection; we want to serve a notice for the preservation of a tenancy.

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry if I am confused, but my right hon. Friend will remember that when we debated this subject I agreed that where we had an empty house he could so act, but my right hon. Friend told us, as I understand it, that he would invoke his power to prevent the ejection of a sub-tenant. My difficulty is how is he going to act in—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I hope the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member will not continue this Debate at any length, as it does not appear to me to be in Order, as what is being discussed is outside the Bill, and on the Third Reading we can deal only with what is in the Bill.

Mr. Johnston: If my hon. Friend will see me outside, I will give him the most satisfactory assurances. [Interruption.] I am forbidden to give them here. You cannot have it both ways, that I am ruled out of Order and that there is to be surprise when I offer to meet the point in another way.

Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that if the powers actually exist in the Bill there is nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent my right hon. Friend explaining what the powers in the Bill are?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The answer is that there are two alternative aims which bring about the same effect.

Mr. Johnston: No, the powers are not in the Bill; they are in the Defence Regulations. That is one of my difficulties in seeking to expound them here. I would say that I have the highest legal assurances for the view I have offered. On the question of Defence Regulation 22, regarding billeting, I am assured that this billeting notice takes effect at once whatever other right of appeal may be reserved to the person upon whom the billeting notice is served. On these two scores we are quite satisfied that we can take steps to prevent the intentions of the Bill from being rendered vague and useless by notices to quit being served upon persons who have the temerity to go to a tribunal. We have done our best, with the materials available to us, to meet a very pressing evil, and if there are still, unfortunately, loopholes which become apparent in the course of time, we shall not hesitate to come back to Parliament for further powers.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (TEMPORARY INCREASES) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair.]

Mr. A. Bevan: For the convenience of the Committee, might I put one or two questions to you, Mr. Williams, on procedure? We are beginning the Committee stage of this Bill very much later than was originally intended.


In view of that, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to complete the Committee stage to-day? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Rule has been suspended."] I know that the Rule is suspended, but we are starting late. In view of the fact that none of the Amendments on the Order Paper raises any issue of—

The Deputy-Chairman: This discussion is irregular except on a Motion to report Progress. Does the hon. Member wish to move to report Progress?

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
My first point is that we are starting the Committee proceedings on this Bill very much later than we expected to do under the arrangement which was made through the usual channels. It was intended that the proceedings on the Scottish Bill should be concluded about an hour and three quarters ago. Secondly, there are no Amendments on the Order Paper which give rise to questions of profound principle, upon which hon. Members and the Government are divided. Therefore, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put the Whips on for all the Amendments? Is it not a situation in which the Committee ought to be allowed to discuss things on their merits? The third point which I would like to raise, for the convenience of the Committee, is whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to look favourably upon any of the Amendments. If he could give us an indication on that point, it would facilitate the proceedings of the Committee.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am not the controller of the time at which the Committee begins its business. I can only say that my wish is to get this Committee stage finished to-day. The sooner this Bill is on the Statute Book, the sooner the many workpeople affected will get benefits from it. I do not think there would be any advantage in postponing the conclusion of the Committee stage. The answer to the hon. Member's second question is that the Government Whips will be put on. The third question is entirely premature. I suggest that we should get on with the Business.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE I—(Supplementary allowances).

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "five," and to insert "ten."
The purpose of this Amendment is to set aside the 13 weeks' limitation in respect of the 5s. under the previous Acts and 10s. under this Bill. On the Second Reading, we heard a lot about this principle of the 13 weeks' limitation, but it was never alleged that any of the parties in the negotiations had put forward a proposal for this limitation. The Trades Union Congress did not ask that this 10s. should be withheld from the men affected for 13 weeks; the Employers' Confederation did not ask for it, the Miners' Federation did not ask for it, the Coalowners' Association did not ask for it. We would like to know whether the coalowner in the Home Office insisted upon it. Where did this 13 weeks come from? The excuse that has been made is that it comes from Beveridge. If it is alleged that women have this 13 weeks' limitation, in order not to prejudice a scheme which may be brought forward next year, the year after, in two years' time, or in three years' time, or which may come forward as part of a Tory election plan, why is it being brought in now in this narrow form? I submit that the real reason behind this 13 weeks' limitation is that it denies to 92 per cent. of the people injured in industry any benefit under this Bill.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): No.

Mr. Edwards: It denies to 92 per cent. of the single men, to 92 per cent. of the single women, and to 92 per cent. of the married women who are injured in industry, any benefit under this Bill. Is that challenged? All this Bill is for is to confer benefits, in the first 13 weeks, upon 8 per cent. of the people who are injured in industry. The Under-Secretary again shakes his head. It should be a small amount—

Mr. Peake: rose—

Mr. Edwards: I tried to interrupt on Thursday when the Under-Secretary was speaking and he was not courteous enough to give way so he must not ask me to do now what he would not do then. We will have some coalowners' manners for a change. This limitation was put in so that


the injured people might be treated as meanly as possible. It has been typical of the coalowner in the Home Office to deny, on every possible occasion, any benefit to our people who are injured in industry. This is the third time we have played with Workmen's Compensation during this war and on each occasion every concession has been hedged around, as this is, so that as little as possible is given to the people injured in industry.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would ask the hon. Member a question for the convenience of the Committee. Does he wish to discuss together this Amendment and the next Amendment in his name—in page 1, line 20, to leave out from the first "week" to "and," in line 23?

Mr. Edwards: With permission, I would like to discuss the first and the second Amendments together, because, if the first is adopted and the second is not, it will make a mess of the Clause.

Mr. A. Bevan: That will result in a very wide discussion.

Mr. Edwards: I want to put this to my right hon. Friend who has had his photograph published, with the nice slogan "The spearhead of humanity" over it. If the Home Office is serious about maintaining this Beveridge principle of 13 weeks, why were the married women who were included in Beveridge excluded from the Bill? Why were single women with widowed mothers who were included in Beveridge excluded from this Bill? Why are widows with children excluded? Under this Clause my right hon. Friend is flying in the face of a decision of this House and of this Government that men and women are to be treated equally. The widower with children is included but the widow with children is excluded. Even Beveridge does not do that. With all the sneers that were indulged in at the expense of Sir William Beveridge on Thursday by people who have not made 100th part of the contribution that Beveridge has made, this Beveridge principle is seized upon and then narrowed for the purpose of excluding as many people as possible. It is our view that that was done so that we might be tied down to worse principles when the big scheme, about which the Home Secretary talks, comes before us.
Why is there not equity between all these people? How does my right hon.

Friend's Government deal with the single man, the single woman and the married woman in a Government factory who is injured? For the first 26 weeks they get full wages. What does he do with the Civil Defence workers who come under him? A woman who is injured in Civil Defence, be she single or married, or a single man who is injured in Civil Defence gets wages for 26 weeks but the most the miner can get is 35s. We have made no progress since 1919 when this 35s. was given. In 1943, it is proposed to give the same rate of compensation as was given a quarter of a century ago. Is that being "the spearhead of humanity"? Take the soldier, the sailor or the airman. They are not to be limited to the first 13 weeks. They will get £2, they will get 10s. constant attendance money, but the miner can live in lodgings and not have enough compensation to pay for his lodgings. I have known injured miners in my constituency getting their 35s. while their sisters, working in Government factories, who had been injured came home and drew full wages. Do you wonder why miners are cynical and why they have lost faith in Members of Parliament and in the present Home Secretary whom they regard as the instrument used to deny them a decent measure of justice? This 35s. is the maximum, and there will be hundreds of them below it.
It is intended to conscript men for the mines. The youngster will be conscripted from London, he will be sent down to South Wales and put into lodgings, and, if, three months later, he is injured, the Government will say, "Although you elected to take this rotten job in the country's interest, we will treat you far worse than if you had elected to go into the Fire Brigade and kick your heels there, or into the Army or the Pioneer Corps." That is the treatment that this Bill provides for these men. Does my right hon. Friend think 35s. is enough? Consider the thing on its merit. If it is enough, why give the soldier a pension of £2; why give the naval man a pension of £2 for total disablement but to the merchant seaman only 35s.? Why give the Civil Defence worker his full wages?
I submit that this Clause is one that cannot be accepted by anyone representing industrial workers in this House. I had meetings this week-end in three mining villages and I was told very


plainly what the men's views were. In many villages, board and lodging costs 35s. I was told that I would not be justified in supporting a Bill which, first, provides an inadequate amount of compensation, and, secondly, treats the single man in the way it is proposed to treat him so that in the first 13 weeks he will get no addition at all. The widow who has two children and who works in a munition factory, will be in precisely the same position as the single man. If my right hon. Friend wants reasons for accepting the Amendment, will he look at the Report of the Select Committee on Equal Compensation which says:
In the field of compensation the adoption of the proposal would require that the same principle be extended to all war service injuries sustained by Civil Defence volunteers and disability pensions payable to men and women in the Services and the Merchant Navy.
Forget for a moment what Sir William Beveridge said. Here is the decision and declared policy of the Government and in order to deny to men in industry that which you have conferred upon everybody else, you bring in the red herring of Sir William Beveridge's limit of 13 weeks.

Mr. Tinker: The Amendment raises a very important issue of workmen's compensation and I hope that the Home Secretary will pay great attention to it. I do not agree with my hon. Friend when he says that people have lost confidence in the Home Secretary. I would not be a party to saying so on this matter, but I do urge my right hon. Friend to view the position as we see it. Workmen's compensation is one of the greatest things that can come to the mining industry. In that industry there are large numbers of single men. They are the very best of our race. Their task is probably harder than that of anybody else and perhaps more daring, and they meet with more accidents than men in ordinary occupations. In this Workmen's Compensation Bill the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, says that for 13 weeks they cannot give any improvement at all and these men are to remain in the same position as they have been for many years. We ask why? Is it for the purpose of saving money? Can the Home Secretary justify it on those grounds? Men will be under a grievance if during

the period when they ought to be assisted to recover, they are debarred from getting the benefit to which we consider they are entitled. The Home Secretary made use of remarks in his speech, such as "What about Beveridge?" We know what Beveridge has said, and I do not like being taunted with what Beveridge said. If the Home Secretary said, "We accept Beveridge in its entirety," he would have a case, but he refuses to accept Beveridge in its entirety, and comes with a portion of it which is very unfair to us. It does no credit to his debating skill when he uses that kind of argument; it lessens him, in our view. If it were argued on the grounds of equity, that these men were not entitled for the first 13 weeks and if he could justify it, a case would be made out, but he cannot justify it. Men in industry want as much as they can get to enable them to get back to industry as soon as possible and we do not want them to smart under a grievance.
This is a very sore point with us. We are supporters of the Government and many of us are making big sacrifices of our principles in supporting the Government. Men have urged me to support the Government for all I am worth, yet it is very difficult for me to go to a body of miners and urge them to give of their best in producing coal and to run risks in coalmining and then, when they are injured, to have to tell them that for the first 13 weeks the Government have not given any increase of compensation at all. I have to go to a meeting of miners on Sunday to deal with the Workmen's Compensation Bill; I shall have to defend the Government and it will be very difficult for me. If I condemn the Government, they will say, "Why not fight the Government and put them out of office, if you can?" that is the last thing I want to do during this war. We appeal to the Government on the grounds of equity to say to these men, "We think you are entitled to this right from the commencement of injury." If that were done, there would be a grand response. I urge the Home Secretary to listen to our plea. We are putting it as genuinely and honestly as we can. I am not criticising the work he has done, because I have admired him for it but in a matter like this, I have some confidence in the people who stand behind me in this great fight. If the Home Secretary says, "I think it is worth while to do this," he will not lose


any dignity; he will be doing honour to the House of Commons. I am satisfied that even Members on the Conservative benches would willingly support us were it not for the feeling that they might bring down the Government.

Mr. Foster: I want to make one or two points in support of this Amendment which may be a repetition of some of my arguments on the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope the Home Secretary will pay due regard to the fact that this 35s. is the maximum figure and that it is not possible for any single man to exceed it for the first 13 weeks. If you analyse the position, you will find that to obtain that amount an injured workman must have an average weekly wage of not less than £3. If he has less than £3 then the present 5s. on the 35s. is reduced by 2d. for every 1s. When you get down to £2 2s. the present 5s. is discontinued entirely.
It may be said that there will not be many cases of that kind but I can assure the Home Secretary, as one who has had considerable experience, that there are many hundreds of these cases. How can the single man or woman live on 35s. a week in these days? The Prime Minister recently stated that the cost of living had risen by 30 per cent. since 1939. At that time we were agitating for a new Compensation Act to give the workers a higher rate of pension. Despite the fact that the value of money has been depreciated in the cost of living to the extent of 30 per cent., it has been thought fit to retain 35s. in this Bill for the single man. That is grossly unfair. I would not be surprised if the single men in the mining industry revolted against this because it is adding another grievance to the already great number of grievances existing in the pits. The single man is now inquiring where he stands if the Bill becomes law and if the Minister does not accept this Amendment. One would think that the Government, in connection with their propaganda to recruit young men for the pits, would create some incentive. Mining is acknowledged to be one of the most dangerous and hazardous jobs in the country. That is not to say that there are not other jobs that are dangerous, too, but you can get people to go into other employment, while it is difficult to get people to go into the mining industry.
I am inclined to the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Caer-

philly (Mr. Ness Edwards) that the reason for giving less payment to a person for the first period or the first few weeks of injury is the feeling that when a man is injured he might malinger, or be idle for a few weeks on the money paid to him. If anybody deserves a few weeks idleness, whether he is injured or not, it is the miner. It is a disgrace and a scandal that the 13 weeks should be applied in this way to the single man. It would not matter so much if you were giving the single man a decent standard of life and then gave him an increase later, but to penalise him in a few weeks of injury is one of the worst things it is possible to do. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will see his way to do something for these single men.

Mr. George Griffiths: I will detain the Committee for only a few minutes, to put this point of view. There are more single men to-day working with the aid of machinery at the coalface than ever before. They are working at the most dangerous spots. When I addressed a branch meeting of miners a fortnight ago and told them the figures we had been given, there was an uproar. The majority of men at the meeting were those who worked on the pan face and were single men. When a man is 45 to 50 the management say to him, "You must come off there," and he is glad to get off. I do not want to call the Home Secretary stupid—I do not think he is—and I do not want to join in the words that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) said about the Minister. I stand with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) in believing that the Home Secretary has done good work for the workers while he has been in office. But unless this position is altered, I am afraid that his stock will go down, at any rate in our branch movement. I met the secretary of this branch—a branch which has 3,000 members—the other day and he said, "We want you to come back on 7th November and explain the Compensation Bill." I have to go back whether I like it or not. I want to go back with his Bill a little better than it is. I hope the Home Secretary will at least agree to the 13 weeks being wiped out for the single man.

Mr. Dobbie: I should like to join with those who are appealing to the Home Secretary to reconsider the


situation in regard to this Amendment. He has had a long and honourable association with the working-class movement, but, wherever one goes among them, they cannot understand his fathering a Bill like this and putting this unfair proposal on to the single man. For years the mineworkers and their representatives have been the spearhead in the working-class movement in pushing forward claims and legislation in regard to compensation, but this is not a mineworkers' question alone. It affects men and women in every industry in the country. The railway workers are astounded at the proposals put forward here. There has been talk about absenteeism among the miners, and there have been revolts in the coalfields, but the railroad workers have set an example of unprecedented loyalty to the Government and the country. When blitzes have occurred men have worked on the permanent way in all sorts of weather and at all times of day and night and have quickly put the railroad right, working in the most dangerous circumstances, to keep the nation's traffic going. Men in the signal boxes have carried on their work under desperate conditions. The men on the footplate have driven trains in the midst of air raids. The Government have replied to them in some instances by giving them a word of praise and patting them on the back. But in regard to wage questions they have perhaps been dealt with worse than any other section of the working-class community. In spite of the fact that they have felt aggrieved and angry, they have loyally accepted decisions when they have gone to arbitration and carried on in spite of the fact that they felt they had had a very raw deal. They have shown an absolute loyalty to the Government and the country which cannot be questioned.
There was some challenge from the Under-Secretary to the Mover of the Amendment in regard to percentages. I have the percentages given me across the Floor of the House by the Minister of War Transport, who informed us a few weeks ago that the number of men engaged on the railways to whom compensation had been paid in the previous year, up to 30th July, 1943, amounted to 35,610. Of that number, 92.7 per cent. have returned to work inside 13 weeks. I will not run into the error of saying that the whole of that 92.7 were

single men, but the overwhelming majority, perhaps 70 or 80 per cent., will have been single persons not entitled to benefit for the first 13 weeks. A few weeks ago there was a great commotion in Yorkshire, and I began to wonder whether I was right when I joined in it, in urging the miners to produce more coal, but I did join in it, and I said, "Do what you can. Here is the position the nation is faced with. Coal is the great motive power which will bring victory, and we ask you to do what you can in the interest of the nation, believing, as we do, that the Government will do the right thing by you." I went to another meeting a week later to endeavour to explain this compensation Bill, and they said, "Is this the Government for whom you asked us to produce extra coal, and are these the people who you said would do the right thing by us?" I must admit I was rather stopped for an answer. In fact, I have not been able to find it yet. I am hoping the Home Secretary will give us the answer to-day by accepting this Amendment. No one understands better than he how the volume of opinion grows among men when they feel that an injustice has been perpetrated upon them. Slowly but surely that feeling is growing among the men in the industrial centres. They cannot understand this unfair proposal in regard to single men.
Therefore, I ask the Home Secretary to review the situation in the light of the proof that is being produced to-day of growing unrest. No one can answer as to what the result will be if, as time goes on, unrest grows among the men in every industry. It is no use saying this is only a Bill to tide over a difficulty and to meet the immediate situation. When you ask the men and women of the working class to take a long-distant view, they say, "How long and what distance?" With the greatest desire in the world to help the Government and not to embarrass the Home Secretary in the great work he is doing, I would ask him to review this Clause. I hope he is not going to tell us he cannot take it back. The Prime Minister said not long ago that he could not nationalise the coal industry without a General Election. I hope the Home Secretary is going to tell us that the proof that we give him of the rising tide of public opinion in every industrial centre is such that on further reflection he and


his colleagues have decided to accept the Amendment.

Mr. A. Bevan: I was wondering whether I would try to catch your eye, Mr. Williams, after the Government reply or would intervene at this stage. It appears to me that it would be better for us to use what persuasion we can on the right hon. Gentleman now, as perhaps it would be difficult for him to retract from the position that he might take up later on. We have certain obligations in this House, and one is to tell the House how we think a certain proposal will be accepted by our constituents. If, for any ulterior reasons, we do not discharge that obligation, we are doing a grave disservice to the House and the country. I hope, therefore, the Home Secretary will not be impatient because we have thought fit to put these Amendments down and speak in the way we have done upon them. I have great admiration for him. I imagine that he has been engaged in a great struggle behind the scenes and that the proposals he is making at the moment do not represent his own wishes but are the results of a compromise into which he has been driven. In the negotiations with the British Employers' Federation, the Trades Union Congress Sub-committee and other elements in the Home Office he, like every other Minister in those circumstances must, of course, reach a compromise agreement. He may be able to tell us—and there will be a great deal of substance in it—that, even if he granted our Amendment, there would still be dissatisfaction about the rates in the mining industry. There would not be as much, but there would be some. I imagine that, if we can show the Government that the compromises which have already been reached have left out of consideration the House of Commons itself, and that in the House there is grave dissatisfaction with the terms of the Bill, it would strengthen the case for taking the Bill back and making a concession.
That is a reasonable point of view to take on the assumption that the Home Secretary has been reluctantly driven into making proposals which he himself considers to fall short of what they should be. I am going to discuss that, because I am in a quandary about it. Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman shares our sympathy with the injured worker, I am driven to ask why we have these proposals

before us. He paid a great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) for his chairmanship of the commitee which met the Home Secretary upon this matter. I understand, though I am open to correction if I am wrong, that the negotiations between the Home Office and the Trades Union Congress had practically concluded on these present proposals before the British Employers' Confederation was met at all. Is that right? We are entitled to ask that. Of course, it would not be proper to ask it were it not that the Home Secretary adduced this argument in commending the Bill to us for Second Reading. I want to know, and the Committee are entitled to know, why these proposals have stopped where they are. Is it because the British Employers' Confederation resisted any further improvement, or the Trades Union Congress? There are two persons who could get us out of this difficulty. One is my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark, because he could get up and tell us that the Trades Union Congress would be delighted if this further concession were made. So the Trades Union Congress is out of the way. The resistance of the Trades Union Congress has gone. They would be delighted if this Amendment were accepted.

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot speak for the Trades Union Congress. I have no authority to speak for them. I only said that whatever improvements we could get in the Bill we should be glad to accept, but I spoke then as an ordinary Parliamentary representative.

Mr. Bevan: That is very satisfactory, because there was an inference in many speeches that if there were any change in these proposals in some way the dignity or prestige of the Trades Union Congress would be affected, by the fact that improvements were obtained. Now we have it from a responsible spokesman, who has been praised by the Home Secretary, that the Trades Union Congress would be delighted if this Amendment were accepted, so we can say we have the Trades Union Congress behind us. If the Trades Union Congress would be delighted with the Amendment they would be disappointed if we did not get it. Who else is resisting? I understand that the British Employers' Confederation have made no observations upon this point at all. They were not asked to


make any. I should like hon. Members opposite to listen carefully to this, because when this matter comes to be discussed in the constituencies they will be charged with being the villians of the piece. There are present hon. Members, not as many as there should be for such a Debate, who have made enlightened speeches on these subjects recently. Will they favour us with their views? Would they also like to see the Amendment accepted; and if not will they tell us why, because to give a silent vote would be serious thing? I am particularly concerned about those who are termed the "Forward by the right committee." Here is an opportunity for them to do their cause great service by showing that they do not merely speak words. It is a good opportunity, and I invite them, in no spirit of malice, to speak. I should be delighted if we could get this Amendment accepted, and I will praise them if they do support us, but I am bound to say that I have no great expectations of their support. The reformists in the Conservative Party have always been progressive young men walking backwards with their faces to the future. They always say to us, "Look where we are looking," and we should say to them, "Look where you are going."
I sincerely suggest these things, because I have watched with surprise the gnarled old oak sprouting and budding with considerable promise, but the leaves have been blighted and have in the past fallen from the tree long before it came to full fruition. Let us see whether it will come to fruition on this occasion. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) made a good speech on the Second Reading. I was delighted with it. He rebuked the Government for being so backward and laggard. Here we are. If he votes with us on this occasion—if we are driven to vote, as I hope we shall not be, because I hope the Amendment will be accepted—he will not bring the Government down. The National Government, which was formed to wage the war, will not fall because the House of Commons insists upon giving 5s. extra to an injured workman. Is it so fragile as that? Everyone knows that to say so is complete poppycock. The reason why the right hon. Gentleman is putting on the Whips is because, un-

fortunately, he thinks he has taken part in a bargain.
What other reason is there? The Trades Union Congress is out of the way. The British Employers' Confederation never got in the way. The young, enlightened minds in the Conservative Party are straining at the leash to do this. I would like therefore to know what stands in the way. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ellen."] No. I am sure that is not true. I have too much respect for her to believe that. I am sure that she is a secret ally of mine in the Government. I am going to suggest that there is a reason which is extremely serious and which was, in fact, contained in the Home Secretary's own speech. The reason is that it is intended—[An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up."] I am sorry. I have a very heavy cold—that this principle of 13 weeks shall be embodied in permanent legislation. My authority for saying that is in the statement of the Under-Secretary of State in winding up the Second Reading Debate. It is true that he did not put it in those exact words, but he did say:
I think the point raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale will be discussed further on the Committee stage. Broadly speaking, our attitude has been not to increase the single man's rate in an upward direction when the Beveridge proposals involve its coming down because that would be to prejudice the Beveridge proposals and to make them forever impossible of adoption."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1943; col. 1614, Vol. 392.]
What does he mean by those words? Does it not mean that by accepting the principle of the increases starting immediately, the Government would feel themselves prejudiced if they were not to include that principle in whatever permanent proposals they are going to make? If it does not mean that, it means nothing.
It means, in fact, that the Government are refusing to put the single man up now because they do not want to bring him down then, so that his low rates are going to be perpetuated. Therefore, we are not discussing merely an Amendment to the Bill but a principle of first-class importance, and the Government, instead of bringing it in as part of the larger Measure, are introducing it, in the words of the Prime Minister, by a side wind. If we accepted this 13 weeks principle now, when the permanent proposals came before the House we should be taunted with the fact that we had accepted this principle in the present Bill. The only way


in which we can keep our position secure when we come to discuss the permanent proposals is to insist upon the abolition of this 13 weeks principle now. I submit to hon. Members that this is a very serious position. I have tried to show the Home Secretary how serious it is. I do not know whether he is going to reply to the Debate, but I hope he is, and I hope that he is not going to talk to us about Beveridge. The right hon. Gentleman has the reputation of being extremely agile in Debate.

Mr. H. Morrison: Me?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, and he deserves it.

Mr. Morrison: Not so much as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bevan: I have envied the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions. The fact is that when the right hon. Gentleman uses the Beveridge Report as a reason for this Bill, we all know that he is twisting. He is tricking. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, and I can tell the Committee why. It is because he is not in the position to say that the Government are accepting the Beveridge Report. I challenge him. Furthermore, I challenge him on another matter. He is not in a position to say that the Government are in a position to bring in a permanent Compensation Bill before the General Election. I challenge him on that. When he says to us, "Accept these proposals now, and wait until I can realise my ambition in bringing in a permanent Measure," he knows very well that he is telling us something he cannot implement, because the Government have not agreed to it. Indeed, does anybody suggest that a Workmen's Compensation Bill of a permanent kind is likely to be non-controversial?

Mr. H. Morrison: I would like to see one.

Mr. Bevan: Exactly. Therefore, the Prime Minister's formula has already debarred the Home Secretary from bringing in a permanent Bill. That is just a piece of simple reasoning. If a Workmen's Compensation Bill of a permanent kind is to be brought into this House before the General Election, it would have to be satisfactory to a majority of Conservatives. Can we see a Workmen's Compensation Bill which is satisfactory to the majority of Conservatives being satisfactory to us? In other words, the formula laid down by the Prime Minister means that the Bill

which we are discussing now contains the proposals until the General Election is held. We are obliged to advise the Committee in that way, and the Minister knows very well that he is unable to give those assurances.
I am going to say just one thing more before I sit down. I hope that hon. Members will agree with it. It is that it requires a great deal of effort to bring our people to take the stand that we are making now. Let me warn the Committee—and this is not a threat at all—that the situation in the mining industry is very serious. The House of Commons will not believe us. They keep on going on from one silly position to another. We could easily have all the single men out on strike on this issue. I think it would be best if the Home Secretary would listen for a moment. I assure him that he ought to listen. We have advised the Government on this mining situation for the last two and a half years, but they have always ignored us, and now we are in the middle of a tragic situation. Do hon. Members know what would get the miners out on strike? It would be if the miners believed that Parliament is no longer any good, if they believed that matters are rigged up before they come here. The Home Secretary has already been responsible for giving them the impression that there has been a bargain outside the House and that nothing we say here can alter that bargain, that he himself is fixed by it. The conclusion drawn by the miners is obvious: if the miners' political representatives are helpless to redress their grievances, they have the right to strike against the terms of the bargain.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Bargain with whom?

Mr. Bevan: The bargain already referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. The bargain has already been made. [Interruption.] I understand the hon. Member is closely associated with the Confederation of British Employers—

Mr. Lewis Jones: Will the hon. Member allow me to make this clear? I am not concerned about the merit of the amount for the moment, but on the question of bargaining was not the bargain already made with the T.U.C., and the British Employers Confederation were informed of the discussions?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member has not answered my question. We already understand that the T.U.C. would be delighted if this Amendment were accepted, but he is not in a position to tell us how far that would create enthusiasm among the employers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us the opportunity of doing one very simple thing, and that is to be able to go down and to say that as a consequence of Parliament's examination of these proposals Parliament obtained improvements for workers injured in industry. Nothing would consolidate Parliamentary institutions in the eyes of the workers more than that, and nothing would increase our authority more when we speak to workers' meetings on these matters.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I think it would be convenient if at this stage I gave the Committee the facts as the Government see them. I think it must be obvious to hon. Members opposite from the remarks of my right hon. Friend during the Second Reading Debate that it is not possible to accede to this Amendment. As I understand it, there are two Amendments before the Committee. The first one is directed to the fact that there is no increase on the 35s. rate in respect of single persons during the first 13 weeks, and the second Amendment is directed to the principle of the 13 weeks' period during which benefits are at a lower rate than they are during the later period. Both these matters were the subject of prolonged discussions with the representatives of the Trades Union Congress during the months of May and June, and my right hon. Friend stated the position, I think, with great accuracy in his Second Reading speech, when he said:
The proposals in the Bill have … been the subject of very long negotiations and consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation. I want to be quite frank. The Bill in some respects does not go so far as the Trades Union Congress would have wished, but they accepted it without prejudice to any other demands that they may make."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1943; col. 1549, Vol. 392.]
I think that states the position as far as the discussions are concerned with great clarity. Of course, before the discussion reached the point with the Trades Union Congress at which definite figures were put forward on behalf of the Government

these figures had been given careful and prolonged consideration by the Government as a whole. These are not decisions taken by myself or even decisions taken by my right hon. Friend. They are decisions of the Government as a whole. The results of the discussions and of the consideration of the Government are embodied in the Bill. I should like to correct one point upon which I think there is some misunderstanding. It has been said that 92 per cent. of all cases of industrial injury lasts for less than 13 weeks and that consequently 92 per cent. of all those injured in industry are to derive no benefit from the Bill.

Mr. Dobbie: Does that refer to my statement with regard to railway men?

Mr. Peake: No, I was referring to the statement of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. The facts are—and I do not think there is any dispute about them—that all old cases of long-term disability will benefit from the moment that the Bill comes into operation. As regards future cases, in the case of a married man he will benefit from the moment of disability—

Mr. Bevan: By five shillings.

Mr. Peake: —by five shillings a week. So far as single persons are concerned, they will get no increase in the present rate until their disability has lasted 13 weeks or more. That is the position, and the reason why the Government have felt unable to make any advance in the present rate of 35s. for the single person is simply this: The Beveridge Report came out last December. It propounded a completely new scheme for workmen's compensation and the incorporation of workmen's compensation in the social security scheme. For that purpose the Report proposes that industrial disability shall be treated on the same footing as disability arising either through sickness or from unemployment for a period of 13 weeks and that the rates—

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. I submit that the Beveridge proposals are not before the Committee, and would it be proper for us to discuss the whole of the Beveridge proposals in relation to this matter?

The Deputy-Chairman: Certainly not, but several Members have referred to it for illustration, and I see no reason why


the right hon. Member should not be allowed to do so.

Mr. Bevan: We have protested against this being introduced. If therefore, in my respectful submission, the right hon. Gentleman is to be allowed to discuss the merits of the Beveridge proposals, the whole of the Beveridge Report must be open for discussion.

The Deputy-Chairman: Obviously, if the right hon. Gentleman carried his observations so far as to discuss the whole of the Beveridge Report, I should be obliged to call him to Order, but I think that in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee as a whole that—this discussion has been wide—if it is wide on one side it should be wide on both sides. That is no reason why anyone, whether for the Government or otherwise, should discuss the Beveridge Report in detail. I have only allowed it to be referred to as an illustration and not as the Beveridge Report as a whole.

Mr. Stephen: Has the right hon Gentleman not said that he could not accept the Amendment because the Government had adopted the principles of the Beveridge Report in connection with workmen's compensation, and did he not then proceed to discuss the principle of the Report?

The Deputy-Chairman: That may be, but at the same time I think I am perfectly right in reminding the Committee that other speeches have also been wide.

Mr. Bowles: The Beveridge Report even as proposed by Sir Beveridge is not intended to come into operation until after the war. The Measure we are discussing is a Workmen's Compensation (Temporary Increases) Bill, presumably for the duration of the war. Can what is to be done afterwards have any relation to what is being done in the war?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that illustrates what I have been trying to say, that we should not take it too far. Quotations have been made from the Beveridge Report, and I do not think I should confine them to one side.

Mr. Peake: I was trying to put the point—and I hope I shall be able to keep in Order, and not provoke anybody by what I say—that the reason why the Government feel unable to increase the rate

for single persons during the first 13 weeks of disability is that the Beveridge proposals have two cardinal features as regards workmen's compensation. One is that the rate of benefit shall be the same in cases of industrial disability and in cases of other disability during the first 13 weeks. That is in fact the basis of the Beveridge proposals.

Mr. Bevan: Have the Government accepted it?

Mr. Peake: No.

Mr. Bevan: Then how can the right hon. Gentleman argue in that way?

Mr. Peake: The Beveridge proposals are before the country and under consideration at present. The fact that we are not able to make an increase in the single man's rate under this Bill and the fact that we adopt the 13 weeks laid down by Beveridge does not in any way commit us so far as the long-term scheme is concerned—[Interruption]. May I finish my sentence?—but we adopt these things for the purposes of the Bill, in order that the door may be kept open.

Mr. Bevan: As the right hon. Gentleman has said that what they are going to do about the Beveridge proposals will not be prejudiced by what they do now, why does he not accept it? Why is rejection the only way in which they will not be prejudiced?

Mr. Peake: We are not rejecting anything. We are keeping the door open to the adoption of the Beveridge proposals if they should meet with the approval of the House. The whole question of the long-term scheme is now under consideration. It will not be long before we lay that long-term scheme before the House. In the meantime, we must keep the door open so far as the Beveridge proposals are concerned. That is why we cannot at the present stage either deal with the rate of benefit for single persons or depart from the 13-weeks limit. We are not taking up this attitude through any lack of sympathy with disabled persons, but, so long as the Beveridge proposals are before the country, we must hold this Government free to implement them if this House desires.

Mr. Bowles: Were not the figures in the Beveridge Report purely provisional, and related to the cost of living?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is really going too far. I do not see how the Minister can answer that question.

Mr. Bowles: He has turned down this proposal because of something which is purely provisional, namely, the figures of the Beveridge Report.

Mr. David Grenfell: The circumstances which we now face are most unusual. I do not think any Member can recollect an occasion when the House refrained so long from debating a subject—because nothing has been said against the proposal now before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman himself, with the authority of his office behind him, said not one word against the merits of the Amendment. All he says is that, because the Government are involved in the consideration of something quite extraneous for the moment, they are going to withhold their judgment on this matter, and they are not going to trust the Committee to exercise its judgment, but are going to use the Whips to force the rejection of an Amendment of which the Committee apparently approves, as no speeches are made against it. I would like to discuss the real merits of this Amendment. It does not matter very much what we say if we do not make an honest attempt to achieve justice.
People are injured in very large numbers in the course of their employment. We have a responsibility towards them. The House has for 45 years made provision for persons injured in the course of their employment. I would like to compare what is being done by the Government in this Bill with what was done 45 years ago, when the first Workmen's Compensation Act was passed, in 1898, by a Conservative Government. I remember the agitation, because I worked underground when there was no provision at all for workmen's compensation. In 1898 a modest beginning was made, with provision for 50 per cent. of earnings, up to a maximum of 20s. a week. That sum was not satisfactory, and there was complaint in those days because the figure was so low. But let us recall the value of the compensation which was paid 45 years ago, and compare it with the compensation which is proposed by the Government in this Bill. In 1898 20s. was worth £2 6s. 6d. to-day. The cost of living rose 16 per cent. between 1898 and 1914, and we are going on the

assumption that the cost of living is 100 per cent. higher now than it was in 1914. So the cost of living stands at a level of 232 compared with the 100 of 1898. That 20s. in 1898 purchased for the injured person so much in lodging accommodation, so much in food, and so much in clothing. To provide him with the same tangible compensation to-day a man would need £2 6s. 6d. But the Bill leaves the maximum at 35s. a week, 11s. 6d. short of the level of what was done by this House 45 years ago.
I have spent a long life in the industry, trying to improve conditions. I have never willingly taken a step backward. I am not going to do it to-day. There are responsibilities which are borne by every Member of this House, but we have a special responsibility; we are the mouthpieces of men who have become the victims of industrial accidents in larger numbers than other people. I shall decide this case on its merits. If the demerits can be proved, I shall fall in, but until I hear someone make a case having relation to the actual facts, the amount paid and the things which can be bought, and unless I can be satisfied that the limit of 45 years ago is at least maintained, I shall vote for the Amendment. Hon. Members on that side are under no more obligation than we are to vote for something in which they do not believe. If they believe in this Government proposal, let them rise and speak. If not, let them not vote for something in which they do not believe. My right hon. Friend has no right to ask the Committee to forfeit its rights. No Government has that right. My right hon. Friend has no right to ask the House of Commons, in any circumstances, to vote against its convictions, to vote against the rights of the people it represents, unless a case is made for doing so. The right hon. Member said nothing to justify the limitation of this Bill.
I am not sure that anybody on this side of the Committee quoted from Beveridge, Reference was made to the Beveridge argument, but nobody quoted the Report, and I do not propose to do so now. I would say to the Government that I do not think that Sir William Beveridge has all the wisdom of the world on his side. He has presented a scheme which is equal to anything that has been put forward by anyone else, but do the Government accept that scheme? Will the right hon.


Gentleman say now that the Government regard Sir William Beveridge's authority so high as to accept his Report? We insist upon the right of examining the Beveridge Report clause by clause and word by word. We have not finished our examination. It will take a long time before we give our opinion of the Beveridge Report. This is not a judgment on the Beveridge Report but upon a particular provision.
I ask the Home Secretary to address himself to this point. He will not deny that what he proposes is that a man shall get into an industry in which large numbers are employed, and if he is injured he will not, under the Government's proposals, have enough to pay his board for the first 13 weeks. He will have to beg, borrow or steal. As opportunities are very limited even for borrowing or stealing, the public assistance committee or somebody else must come to his aid unless the Government are more generous in their proposals. I feel sure that if the right hon. Gentleman can make a case now and say, "I am giving this man, in the course of his disability during the first 13 weeks, enough to live on," he will get us to agree with him. But in approving that case he must rise above the 35s. and give us the amount for which we are asking.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I do not think that the party opposite have any desire to benefit technically from what is going on at the moment. They have spoken with sincerity. It is more important that we should consider one thing and one thing only, and that is, that workmen who suffer disability are going to have insufficient justice done to them. I realise that the Home Secretary is now in an awkward position. His Under-Secretary has rejected the Amendment, and for the Home Secretary to throw over his second-in-command as if he were a Foreign Secretary does not quite meet the situation. I probably speak for my hon. Friends around me here when I say that, in our opinion, the Government have not answered the case. I feel very strongly about the single man who has not a home. In some ways it is easier for a married man to go through a difficult period of 13 weeks than for a single man, and, much as I dislike it, because I admire the humanitarianism and the great abilities of the Home Secretary, I must say that, unless the Home Secretary can agree to con-

sider the Amendment and bring the matter back on the Report Stage or something like that, or if he refuses to accept the Amendment, then, even at the expense of finding some rather strange bedfellows, I shall have to vote for the Amendment.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I would also like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) and ask the Home Secretary whether he cannot reconsider the matter. It is truly the fact that throughout the whole country there is wide distress because no decision has yet been taken on the Beveridge Report. I would ask the Home Secretary to bear in mind the effect it would have in the country if it were widely believed that not only have the Government so far refused to express an opinion on the Beveridge Report but are actually using the Beveridge Report as an excuse for objecting to a purely wartime temporary social measure. It is because of the effect on the general opinion of the country and the war effort as a whole that I beg of the Home Secretary to reconsider this matter.

Mr. Butcher: I would like to associate myself with the appeal made to the Home Secretary by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). I cannot help feeling that there must be some better reasons for rejecting the Amendment than we have yet had from the Under-Secretary. As far as I could follow his argument—and he dealt with it admirably—there were two reasons: first, that Beveridge was to be used as a ceiling in all cases, and the other argument was that certain negotiations have taken place between the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation. That may very well be, and the Home Secretary may feel himself in honour bound to introduce such proposals. But I am equally bound to say that that creates no responsive chord in my heart, because I have no connection with the Trades Union Congress and equally no connection with the British Employers' Confederation. I regard this matter simply and solely on the merits of the case viewed at the present time and without any relation whatever to such adjustments as may be necessary either upwards or downwards, and I stress both those words. I have been very impressed by the arguments


made by Members representing mining constituencies. Those of us in the rural areas and in towns know what a lot we owe to the miners, and a gesture of encouragement from this House would do far more good than making promises. The arguments have been far more in support of the Amendment than the arguments of my right hon. Friend for rejecting it. If the matter goes to a Division, though I shall find myself in strange company, I shall vote for the Amendment.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I would not intervene in the Debate were it not for two factors that weigh with me in this issue. I know, as hon. Members are aware, a little of the negotiations that have transpired between the Trades Union Congress and the Home Office. On that point I would appeal to hon. Members, especially on the Conservative side—and I am sure my history is correct—to have regard to the statement made by that famous Conservative statesman, Burke, who, I think, was a Member for Bristol at the time. The Tory caucus in Bristol demanded that he should vote in Parliament according to their decision locally. He laid down a principle that is very applicable to our position here to-day when he told them he was not their delegate but was a public representative. Every hon. Member in this House, irrespective of the Trades Union Congress or any other outside body has his responsibility to his constituents as a political representative.
As hon. Members know, I have been in this House for a fairly long time and I have lived more or less in the administration of the social insurance world for the last 35 years. This is the first time so far as I remember that Parliament has made a legalised discrimination against the single man and woman in the social services. There is no such discrimination in other schemes. This 5s. increase is, in part, designed to meet the extra cost of living. Does the Home Office think that the increased cost of living does not affect the single person? Of course it does. As an old miner I am delighted at the efforts which my colleagues have made to persuade the Government to alter their views on this matter. If the money for this purpose came out of State funds, I guarantee that the Government would

readily admit the principle of this Amendment. Why have they refused? Because the increase comes out of the funds of the private insurance companies. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes, it does. I do not want to criticise the Home Secretary unduly because I know he has a very difficult task in dealing with these companies, but I want to say to him that in our experience during this war, when we have asked for increases for the social services, especially in relation to civilian injuries, there has never been any such discrimination when the State has been responsible for finding the money.
My miner colleagues have been pleading for those injured in the mining industry, but I would like to point out that millions of people outside that industry are also affected. I do not know how many Members have seen the recent report of the Chief Factories Inspector. It states there that there were 313,000-odd accidents in 1942, apart from coal mining. The Inspector himself suggests that there were many thousands involved who were single persons, so that apart from the mining and railway services, there will be thousands of single persons employed in factories in this country affected by this Measure. I hope, therefore, that a way can be found out of this difficulty. I represent what is paramountly a mining division. There is no more tragic figure in my division than the derelict old miner who has been incapacitated for years and left almost forgotten by the community. Therefore, I hope the Government will change their minds for the better on this Amendment.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: ; The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) invited me to express an opinion on this matter, and I want to tell him frankly that at the time he made that invitation I was prepared to tell him, without qualification, that I should support the Government in resisting this Amendment. But since then I feel that the sense of the Committee has been rather changed as the result of the Debate. The Government cannot expect unqualified support if they do not argue a case. If a case were put now by the Home Secretary in an intelligible form I should not hesitate to support it, but to ask a large Government majority to obey the voices of the Whips, on an unargued case, is straining political loyalty rather high.
There are one or two observations I would like to make about this matter. I think the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale rather unwittingly misrepresented the attitude of those who agree with me. The discussion which has taken place to-day has illustrated very neatly two points we have been consistently making. The first is that you will not get any good in a Bill of this kind in the long run because it does not give you a new deal in workmen's compensation. We are committed by the terms of this Amendment to discussing a measure of tinkering, and further measures of tinkering within that measure of tinkering. I find it difficult to say that, if we are committed to tinkering of some kind, the Home Secretary is not as good a tinker as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. My withers are completely unwrung, either by the Home Secretary, who has committed us to tinkering, or by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who asks me to prefer his version of tinkering to that of the Home Secretary's.
The other point which is neatly illustrated by this discussion arises out of the reply by the Under-Secretary. In a speech in my constituency, of which he had not previously informed me, the right hon. Gentleman thought it right to make some general observations about the Beveridge Report. We have always maintained that if the Government would not accept the principles of that Report as an uncontroversial measure of progress you would get the sort of disorderly problem you are getting to-day. If the Under-Secretary had known of the trouble he would get into to-day, before he made that speech in my constituency, I think he would probably have expressed himself a little differently. He now asks me to vote on the Government Whip for the consequences of a failure of which I predicted the result. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, in the course of his conciliatory remarks towards a group of Conservative Members on this side, suggested that this sort of thing would not bring down the Government. I am not so sure. This Government is based on agreement and collaboration between the two political parties. Although nobody has a greater respect or liking for the Home Secretary personally than I have, the main feature which attracts me to him in his support of the Government, is that he is an official and accredited representative of the Labour party.

The Chairman (Major Milner): I do not think the hon. Member can discuss the bringing down of the Government. It does not arise on the Amendment at all. If hon. Members will forgive me for saying so, I think that they are straying somewhat from the point. We must get back to the Amendment.

Mr. Hogg: The argument put to me was that to vote on the Amendment did not have any wider implications and I am anxious to put forward a political argument which I think carries a certain amount of weight. It is that we on this side of the House are bound much more strongly than hon. Members on the opposite side to support Labour Ministers when they speak on behalf of the Government. Those who sit around me did so on the Catering Bill without any question, for that reason. We did so because of the value of collaboration between the parties. But the moment it appears that Members of the Government cannot command the support of their own party, I believe that will be the end of collaboration. We should be anxious, therefore, to support the Government, especially Labour Ministers in the Government, as much as we possibly can. Nevertheless, it is an urgent necessity, in view of the speeches that have been made from below the Gangway in particular, that some reconsideration should be given to the matter and that the Home Secretary should put the case a little more forcibly than it has been put.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I think the Committee of the Whole House to-day, so far as I have listened to the speeches, has been shown at its best. This is a proposal, I have no doubt, which has been discussed between my right hon. Friend and other agencies outside. It is true that, rather regretfully, a compromise was accepted and I would put this to my right hon. Friend, who is a very experienced Parliamentarian and a very shrewd politician. He must feel, after the speeches that have been made, that this question is one for further consideration. I do not complain that he stands firmly by the undertakings and arrangements which have been reached between him and the Trades Union Congress and bodies outside. I think it would have been unfair to himself and the Government if he had departed from them. But, having heard what I have heard to-day—and I


should like to thank hon. Members for the tributes they have paid to my hon. Friends for the way they have stated their case—if it be, as it appears to be, the general wish of the Committee, as far as they have spoken—leaving out some of the trimmings, including some by my hon. Friend for which he was called to Order—I should have thought it would be a course of wisdom for the Government to say, "We will look at this problem again." I am not saying this in any kind of party spirit. From what I have heard from five or six Members, whom we do not always expect to see eye to eye with us, and who will not make a habit of doing so, it is, undoubtedly, the case that the majority of Members feel that here is a proposal which requires re-examination and reconsideration by the Government. I should be sorry to see the Bill withdrawn, and I should be sorry to see it sunk but I should have thought, in view of the expressions of opinion that have been offered, that my right hon. Friend might agree to take the matter back for some further consideration. I am certain that, if he gave the undertaking, the vast majority of Members would be quite satisfied.

Mr. Lipson: I hope the Home Secretary realises the strength of the feeling on all sides of the Committee for this Amendment. No one has spoken but Ministers in support of the attitude taken up by the Government. I hope, therefore, that he will follow the example, in similar circumstances, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, when he found over the pay-as-you-go proposals that the feeling of the House on all sides was against the Government scheme, agreed to take the matter back for further consideration. I suggest that this is a matter on which the Home Secretary might adopt the same policy. The feeling of the Committee is very strong that in a temporary Measure there should be a generous rather than a mean attitude. The feeling is that the House of Commons, while it welcomes negotiations with all kinds of bodies outside, refuses to hive its rights and privileges curtailed because of decisions arrived at outside the House. This attitude of saying, "We have agreed with outside bodies" strikes at the very roots of Parliamentary Government. I hope we shall show that we have had more than enough of it and are determined to resist it. If the Home Secretary digs his toes

in and refuses to give way, and we have a Division, I shall vote for the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: Is not the Home Secretary going to reply to the Debate? In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has made a statement, I should have thought it was courteous to respond at the earliest moment.

Mr. Tom Brown: I want to follow the thought expressed by the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Butcher) who touched the very important point that it would be a great gesture on the part of the Home Secretary if he accepted this Amendment in order that the men in the coalfields would appreciate that the Government were at least trying to give them something in return for what they have done. A few days ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) said, "Let us cease talking down the mining industry. Let us try in every conceivable way to put the mining industry on a much higher plane." Previous to that, hon. Members on both sides in Parliament had said, "Let us make the mining industry attractive, so that it will attract the young men who are so badly needed." I have been asking myself during this Debate, "Are we really sincere in wishing to make the mining industry attractive?" When the Home Secretary puts before Parliament a Measure which will penalise for 13 weeks single men who sustain an accident in the pits or anywhere else, but particularly in the pits, where we have a tremendous number of accidents happening every day. I have a great admiration for the Home Secretary, for his shrewdness and for his progressive mind. If I may use a Lancashire term regarding his shrewdness, I would say that he has the "fause as two men and a lad," but I would tell him that, from the point of view of its application to single men, this is the most reactionary Measure ever brought before Parliament.
Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, when the men were injured they had to "play them" three weeks before they could claim one week's compensation. Under the Act of 1925 when they were injured they had to "play them" four days, compensation becoming


payable on the fourth day, but if they were away from work for more than four weeks they received compensation as and from the date of the accident. How in heaven's name a man with the progressive mind of the Home Secretary can ask men to "play them" 13 weeks before they have any improvement in their compensation beats me down to the ground. Looking back for 23 years, we find that the Holman-Gregory Committee expressed the opinion, after receiving volumes of evidence, that compensation should be payable from the date of the accident. Surely the Home Secretary ought not to go back on that by putting forward this reactionary Measure. We have been asked to plead with our men in the coalfields to give of their best and to sacrifice here and there concessions which had been won by long years of negotiation and agitation, and the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) and myself and other mining Members have done so, and now we are presented with a Measure that does not give one iota in return for what the men have done. I put it to the Home Secretary that this is a vital question. I can foresee, although I do not like to dwell upon it, the far-reaching effects which it will have when we go back to our men this week-end and tell them that we could not persuade the Home Secretary to give justice at least to the single men. I beg the Home Secretary, with all the emphasis that I can command, to concede the Amendment or at any rate to take the matter back, and come forward with a more generous Clause for the single men.

Earl Winterton: I desire to call attention to a Parliamentary situation of which I think we should take notice. I do not do so out of any hostility to my right hon. Friend or to his Department. The mere fact that there is no ordinary Opposition, that the House is almost united in support of the Government, should not cause the Government—and this would apply to the Prime Minister—to take action which is plainly against the wishes of everyone in the Chamber and which can only be carried by the votes of those outside. I do not want to get off the Amendment, but may I call attention to another fact? I do so, I hope, without any sort of discourtesy to the Home Secretary or any reflection upon him. We have had a

very weighty, and, if I may say so, a very tactful and statesmanlike speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). It is usual when the Leader of any great party, whether an Opposition party or not, makes a particular appeal, that Progress should be reported in order that it may be considered by the Leader of the House or by the Home Secretary. I do not profess to express an opinion on the matter before us, but I have heard the last four or five speeches, and they were unanimously against the Government, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should move to report Progress and tell us that he will reconsider this matter. Unless he is prepared to do so, I shall ask permission to move to report Progress.

Mr. H. Morrison: rose—

Earl Winterton: I beg to withdraw my proposal.

Mr. Morrison: Am I speaking on the Question that the Chairman do report Progress?

The Chairman: No. I understand the Noble Lord desires to have a reply, and it is for the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he moves to report Progress or not.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I think it is best that I should move to report Progress because, if my memory serves me right from the days when I sat on the other side, I think on this Motion I can go a little bit wider, as I must do in considering this general situation. I have listened with great care to a discussion which has interested me very much indeed. I have listened to speeches from both sides of the Committee. Fundamentally the position is this: The country knows that the Government have under consideration wide and comprehensive proposals as to social insurance of one kind and another. I am very much interested in them myself and am anxious that things shall be done about them favourably, and I put it to the Committee, as did my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, that it is not in the least unreasonable when the Government have under consideration and in fairly advanced stages a White Paper declaring their attitude on these comprehensive proposals,


that the Government should be careful in the handling of this not permanent but interim Measure not to do things which will prejudice one way or the other the fair consideration of those proposals. That fundamentally is where we are on this point. Moreover, there are various other repercussions on other provisions of one sort and another that now exist, and it seems to the Government that if we get into a field where we are in conflict with these wider proposals to which Parliament attaches great importance and upon which the House had a Division because the Government were not clear-cut enough in their support of them—in these circumstances I think it is a bit thick for hon. Members to come along in this Debate on an admittedly interim Measure and charge the Government with irrelevance when they are taking pains not to prejudice those considerations one way or the other.

Mr. A. Bevan: It does not prejudice them.

Mr. Morrison: With great respect, it does prejudice them. This Bill proposes that the maximum rate of compensation for a single man for the first 13 weeks should be 35s. In the Report on Social Security and Allied Subjects it was recommended that the amount for the first 13 weeks should be 24s.

Mr. Stephen: Subject to examination.

Mr. Morrison: Of course, everything is subject to heaven knows what when you come to the point. In this Bill the figure is 35s. against 24s. But that is not unreasonable in one direction, because that is the existing figure, and it compares with a maximum of 30s. before the war. That is the first difference. The second difference is that for a married man under the Report on Social Security the figure, I think, was 40s., and this Amendment would give the married man 45s. Therefore, in two respects, we walk right into this Report, with consequences not only to workmen's compensation but with repercussions and complications on various other proposals affecting other social services covered in that Report.
I put it to the Committee that any Government which allowed itself, on this temporary, interim Measure, to be pulled all over the show in such a way that its

decision on this very big scheme, on which it is almost due to report to the House in a White Paper, is materially prejudiced in a number of directions, would be an exceedingly foolish and irresponsible Government. With great respect, and as one who took part in that famous Debate followed by a Division, the Debate in which I was attacked for not "standing pat" enough on the Beveridge Report, I say that this is not playing the game, and it is not playing the game in more senses than one, as some hon. Members opposite know.

Mr. Stephen: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that?

Mr. Morrison: Well, the hon. Member would not know. I say that the Committee would be contradicting that earlier Debate and would be putting itself into an impossible situation when the time comes to report on these other and wider proposals. Let us get the Bill in its true perspective. It is a temporary, interim Measure. If I may be so indiscreet as to quote an absolutely relevant extract from this Report on Social Insurance and Allied Services, relevant to the Bill, I will do so. This is what it says:
To deal piecemeal with particular defects of the present system and above all to deal piecemeal with deficiencies in the amount of benefit or compensation now provided, in advance of a general decision on the whole plan, involves a risk amounting to a certainty of the continuance of the anomalous treatment of like cases by different methods.
I am bound to say that the gentleman who wrote that report was absolutely right on that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman is doing it."] I know I am. Of all foolish people, I am the person, who is jumping in and doing something for the injured workman, without prejudice to the bigger proposals. Far better if I had said: "Do nothing. Keep out of it. Do nothing till the big proposals come." That is the moral of this Debate. I put it to the Committee that any future Home Secretary faced with a Parliamentary situation like this and with pressures and auctions and what-not, will be inclined to say: "I have seen the present Chancellor of the Exchequer bringing forward a Compensation Bill. I have seen the present Under-Secretary of State handle legislation of this kind and I have seen the right hon. Gentleman—the present Secretary of State—handle


it; do you think I am going to walk into this subject? Not I." That is the moral of this situation, in which I entered the lists.
I was perfectly entitled to say that the problem had been dealt with on a temporary basis in 1940, that the cost of living since 1940 had gone up only by eight points or 8 per cent., and so I would "stand pat" until the Beveridge Report was settled. I did not. I said: "I will look at what outstanding grievances there are, and see what are the principal points that I can touch up, modify and alter temporarily until the big thing is considered." I added to the bill of Workmen's Compensation round about £4,000,000, with, on the whole, an increase of benefits that average about 22½ per cent., so far as I can make out. But I am treated to-day by my own comrades, not as a man who is adding £4,000,000 and about 22½ per cent. to their benefits, but as though I were attacking the injured workman and taking things away from him. That was the spirit of the speech of the Mover of the Amendment. I say nothing about that speech because it was not worthy of an answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It was not, and I think that the personal attack that my hon. Friend made on me and on the Under-Secretary of State was not worthy of it: I prefer the tone and the persuasive and effective character of the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) to that sort of thing. I come now to the next point.

Mr. Bartlett: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he be good enough to let me ask him whether he is not using an argument which, in the long run, he will regret? Surely there is nothing to be ashamed of and no loss of prestige or greatness involved if a Minister does give way to the obvious wish of the Committee or does his best to meet it.

Mr. Morrison: I never said there was. I will tell the Committee what will happen to a Minister who gives way knowing that he is going to get into a mess when he has done so and knowing that when he is in that mess for giving way under temporary pressure this House of Commons will have no mercy on him.
May I come back to the constitutional point, which is being flung all over the

place, to the discussions which took place outside the House, because it is very relevant. We went through the ordinary course. We had ideas of our own. I had ideas. My right hon. Friend had ideas and the Government Department and the Government had ideas. Then there were the ideas of the Trades Union Congress and the Employers' Confederation. We had discussions. We had our own mind on the subject, and they had theirs. At the end of the day, concessions and acceptances were given by all sides, this way and that way, and finally a deal was done. There is nothing wrong about that. [An HON. MEMBER: "A deal?"] There is nothing wrong about that, because I had to come to Parliament, and Parliament can upset it, if it wishes to.
What my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) was asked to do to-day by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was typical of the state of mind, attitude and ethical codes of the two men. My hon. Friend was asked to take up this attitude: "You have negotiated with the Home Secretary as leader of the Trades Union Congress Delegation, on which the miners were represented. The Miners' Executive have acquiesced in this arrangement. You headed the deputation and at the end you came to an agreement with the Secretary of State. That is to say, at the end of the day you said, 'All right, I would like some more, but I take it. I call quits, and reserve the right another day and on another Bill and in a new situation to urge further improvements.'" That was the position of my hon. Friend. He can correct me if I am wrong. What is he asked to do when he comes to this Committee? He is asked to say: "It is true that I made an agreement with the Home Secretary and that I came to a deal outside, but now as a Member of Parliament, and as distinct from a member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, I repudiate the arrangement and start it all over again." My hon. Friend is not going to do that. He is not that sort of man and I am not going to be a victim of this kind of argument in any case.
Let us see where we are. The Committee will forgive me for speaking frankly, but I have put up with a lot of this, and I am not in the habit of being walked oh, without making some observa-


tions. Let us see where the Labour Party is. After all, this has been a bonny afternoon between Labour Members and a Labour Minister and I hope everybody has enjoyed the adventure. Some others joined in, I agree—I wonder they had not joined in before. Where are we? Would you believe it, although this Bill is an improvement, it is being denounced almost as if it were an attack upon the injured workman and was hurting him. Although that is so, would you believe it, this Bill has been endorsed as an interim settlement, without prejudice to the future by all the representative Labour bodies outside and inside Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) deny that? No. I thank him for that admission. It is the case that this Bill, an interim compromise Measure, without prejudice to the future, has been endorsed by all the representative Labour organisations outside and inside Parliament. It has been accepted, and my hon. Friends have been recommended to facilitate its passage. Why should I be on the spot? What have I done wrong? I do not follow it. There are these representative labour bodies including the Executive Committee of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain. I wonder why I am on the spot. I ought not to be in the dock. There ought to be a whole crowd of people in the dock for having endorsed it. The fact is that these trade union representatives have not the advantage which Members of Parliament have, of being a bit elastic about things. Trade union leaders have to conduct responsible negotiations, come to agreements and stand by them. That is what I have done.
I stand by this Bill. There will be a Division, I suppose, notwithstanding all these Labour declarations. So be it, but let us face what the consequences must inevitably be. I have told the Committee why His Majesty's Government cannot accept this Amendment, We have not refused to accept the Amendment out of amour propre or false dignity or anything like that, but because we will be in great difficulties in a number of directions if we accept it, and it affects the balance and structure of the Bill. We cannot accept it. I want to tell the Committee, not in any mood of defiance, threat or otherwise, but as a matter of fact that the

effect, if this Amendment were carried, would, in my judgment, be to bring this Bill to an end. The Bill could not go on. With great respect, I am taking my responsibility. Hon. Members must take theirs. This Bill could have been on the Statute Book in August and possibly £1,000,000 have been lost to the injured workers of the country because it was not on the Statute Book in August. We have only a little while to the end of the Session. The Bill has to go to another place. It is perfectly clear that the Bill will lapse if we are in a situation where the Government has to consider remodelling and rebalancing it. Therefore, I must resist the Amendment and must intimate to the Committee that if the Amendment were carried—which I do not think it will be—in my view the situation would be such that the Bill would drop. That situation must be faced.
In all the circumstances I ask the Committee to take this view. It may be that this Bill does not give everybody what everybody wants. If it gave a lot more my hon. Friends would have enough ingenuity to think of other needs that they would like met as well. I do not complain of that in the least, but I do suggest that the Bill is a big advance. I have told the Committee that I wish to clean up the structure of workmen's compensation from top to bottom. This Bill is the best I can do for the Committee. It is a temporary Measure, but it is a substantial move forward. I beg the Committee to accept that situation and to reject the Amendment. Let us complete the Bill and get these benefits for the injured workmen as soon as possible.

The Chairman: Did the right hon. Gentleman move to report Progress?

Mr. Morrison: I did.

The Chairman: The Question is, "That I do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Mr. Bevan: I thick my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee are entitled after the Debate we have had to resent the tone of the Home Secretary's speech because the right hon. Gentleman has imported into this Debate much more than we did in our Amendment. May I say to the Committee that, in point of fact, in two-thirds of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman was wallowing in self-pity for the difficulties which he himself


had created. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] Certainly. A very great portion of his speech was asking the Committee to sympathise with the difficulty he is in as a consequence of negotiations and arrangements made elsewhere. We are not primarily concerned with the Home Secretary's difficulties. We are primarily concerned with the difficulties of the injured men. Therefore—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not entitled to revert to the Amendment.

Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. The Home Secretary dealt with the merits of the Bill, with trade union negotiations, and with everything in it. Are you, Major Milner, giving a Ruling which gives to a Cabinet Minister something that you do not give to a private Member?

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman replied to the Debate, which he was perfectly entitled to do, and he then moved to report Progress.

Mr. Bevan: The Home Secretary moved to report Progress at the very beginning and made some very general observations, some of them exceedingly tart and we must have the opportunity of replying. The difficulty as I see it is that if the Committee accepts the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's contention, then there is no need for Parliament to do any other than rubber-stamp decisions, which the right hon. Gentleman reaches with outside bodies. That is exactly what he says, and by some astonishing method of logic he accuses Members of Parliament of being dishonest because they do not endorse the decisions of cliques outside. I am astonished by that. The hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), in the course of a reply to the right hon. Gentleman—if the Home Secretary will give me his attention—in answer to an intervention said that the position of the Trades Union Congress was that they would be delighted—

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot go into that. I proposed the Question that I do report Progress, and that is the Question before the Committee and is the only Question which the hon. Member or any other Member can discuss.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. The Home Secretary has made a long speech

concerning the merits of the Bill and the Beveridge Report, which is not before the Committee, and made an attack on hon. Members for the attitude they took up I submit that the Ruling from the Chair is quite unreasonable.

The Chairman: I am sure that on consideration the hon. Member will recognise that the Question "That I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again" was not before the Committee until I proposed it, and that it is now the Question before the Committee.

Mr. Cocks: It will be within your recollection, Major Milner, that the Home Secretary in his first sentence said that he wished to move to report Progress in order to widen the Debate.

Mr. Bevan: And I am supporting the Motion moved by the Home Secretary.

The Chairman: I was not clear that the right hon. Gentleman did in fact move it until I asked him whether he was doing so or not, at the end of the speech. He then moved it.

Mr. Butcher: May I ask your Ruling, Major Milner, whether it is competent for a Minister to move to report Progress without adducing any reasons why he should do so?

The Chairman: Perfectly competent.

Mr. Buchanan: May I put this point, in fairness to the Committee? During the speech, if I had thought that the Motion to report Progress was not before the Committee I would have put a whole series of points of Order, because the negotiations that have gone on outside were not relevant to the Amendment. I assumed that the Minister was moving to report Progress, and, therefore, I thought that a wider speech was bound to be allowed. We were under that impression the whole time. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was miles out of Order if it were not on a Motion to report Progress.

The Chairman: Let me make it clear. If the general sense of the Committee is to return to the Amendment then it is open to the right hon. Gentleman to ask for leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Stephen: I wish to recall to your memory, Major Milner, that the right hon.


Gentleman the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) moved to report Progress but withdrew the Motion, because he understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that he would move it. The Home Secretary moved it immediately thereafter. I put it to you that this Motion to report Progress was moved at the beginning of the Home Secretary's speech, and I submit to you that that Motion was before the Committee during the speech. I submit that it would be intolerable if the Home Secretary, after his accusation against Members of his own Party, should now try to run away.

The Chairman: The question does not arise until I have in fact proposed it from the Chair. Does the right hon. Gentleman ask for leave?

Mr. H. Morrison: May I say that I am exceedingly sorry that I have caused this trouble? If I have the leave of the House to do so, I beg to withdraw the Motion.

The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Motion be withdrawn?

An Hon. Member: No.

Mr. Bevan: Now I understand that the Committee is back on the Amendment.

The Chairman: No. I understand that the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has refused his consent to the Motion being withdrawn.

Mr. Maxton: I wish to speak on the Motion to report Progress. I submit that it would be most indecent and out of keeping with the practice of Parliament for the Home Secretary, of his own volition, to deliver a tirade—because that is the only way I can describe it; though I was fortunate in hearing only a portion of it, I thought everybody seemed to be out of step except our little Herbert—on the Motion to report Progress, and that then, on the suggestion of the same Home Secretary, that Motion should be withdrawn, and we should pass back to the more limited scope of the Amendment. I could not see myself in any of the various classes that the Home Secretary was condemning, but I think that, if the hon. Gentlemen who have been castigated are prepared to agree, as tempers are frayed and we have reached this

hour of the clock, the wisest thing is now to accept the Motion to report Progress.

The Chairman: Leave to withdraw the Motion to report Progress has been refused, and, therefore, the proper course, if the Committee wish to adopt it, is to negative the Motion when we can resume discussion on the Amendment.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."

Mr. Bevan: I understand that the Debate is now resumed on the Amendment. Having got out of that tangle, we may now speak on the Amendment itself. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech—is the Home Secretary now leaving?—which in its full implications is exceedingly serious for the practice of the House of Commons. Almost every passage was cheered by hon. Members opposite. I notice that it was cheered by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Members of this House are bound in this House by decisions reached by the Trades Union Congress? That is what he said. He accused us of being false to our pledged word because in the House of Commons we claim the right to examine an agreement made outside. That is a very serious state of affairs. If it is known in the constituencies that that is the line which is being taken by the Government, by the Home Secretary, and by the members of the Conservative Party, that that is the line that Parliament is asked to take, it will be said that we are two-thirds on the road to totalitarianism. If we adopt that line, we shall be destroying Parliamentary democracy in the House of Commons to a far greater extent than our troops can restore it on the battlefield. I am not bound in the least by decisions made by outside bodies. We are entitled to examine those decisions, and the Government must justify them on their merits. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who I see has run away, made his statement about the relations of the T.U.C. to Members of this House.
The facts are these. We have been pressing for many years for an improved Workmen's Compensation Bill. We have asked the Government over and over again


in all, the interim Bills brought into the House of Commons. Miners' branches pressed for the Bill increasing the rates, and they have always been promised that they would be brought in. So incensed did the miners of the country become over the delay that at a South Wales miners' conference at which I was present the President had to give a guarantee that unless a Workmen's Compensation Bill was put in hand immediately another conference would be called and strike action put into operation. That is why the Home Secretary moved. He did not move because of his humanitarianism. He moved because he was kicked. The Government did not move because they were concerned about miners or injured workmen but because the injured men had the sympathy of all their comrades and a stoppage was imminent. Is not that the fact that disposed of the wallowing self-pity of the politician who got into difficulty and asked us to sympathise with him because he had done a deal outside? When I heard that language falling from the lips of the Home Secretary I wondered how low Parliament had sunk and why the Home Secretary had done a deal outside and had asked us to support him in the House of Commons. It is the line of a petty auctioneer and not of a statesman. The whole attitude was that of a squalid backstairs Tammany Hall politician. He said that the Trades Union Congress endorsed it. I challenge the Trades Union Congress. They could not get the trade unionists of this country to endorse this Bill if they were asked to do so. All they asked were the upper bureaucracy of the trade unions. You did not ask the trade unions; you asked the £1,000 a year men at the top.

Captain Strickland: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that trade union leaders no longer represent the trade unions?

Mr. Bevan: I contend that in this matter of the Workmen's Compensation Bill we represent the rank and file of the industrial workers of Great Britain far more than do the trade union leaders. The workers of this country do not listen to the leaders of trade unions. They go on strike after they have heard them. Free British workers are not controlled.

Sir Granville Gibson: They run away from the agreements of their own leaders.

Mr. Bevan: We hear Dr. Goebbels behind. When we go to our constituencies we say the reason why you have not increased compensation is that the Government do not care about them.

Commander Agnew: On a point of Order. Can the Committee be informed what Amendment is before it, as it is not clear from the hon. Member's speech?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): That is not a point of Order. The discussion has already been very wide, and no doubt the hon. Member may not have been keeping strictly to it.

Mr. Bevan: I attach the most relevant thing to the Amendment. The Home Secretary said he could not accept the Amendment because if he accepted it it would prejudice the structure of workmen's compensation on which the Government are engaged. He is introducing an entirely different principle into the Measure; 13 weeks without any increase of rates is an entirely new principle in workmen's compensation. There is no reason why a permanent scheme should be prejudiced by altering the structure of the existing Workmen's Compensation Act and increasing the rates immediately. All the other rates come into operation at once. It is not fair that in an interim Measure of this sort, dealing primarily with rates of compensation to relieve immediate rates of compensation, the Home Secretary should introduce an entirely new principle on the grounds that in the consideration of the permanent scheme that new principle is to be included.
The Home Secretary said that if this Amendment were carried, the Bill would be withdrawn. I will answer that by this: If that cowardly thing were ever done, if the Home Secretary sank to such despicable depths as to withhold the increase from the married men, I would stump the coalfields and get the men out on strike in a fortnight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] The Committee is being bullied and blackmailed by the Home Secretary. He is not asking us to vote on the merits of the Amendment. He is not asking us to discuss the merits of the Amendment. He is telling us that if we, as a House of Commons, dare insist upon this Amendment, which is declared reasonable by many on the other side, the whole benefit will be withdrawn. If that is the


attitude, what is the redress of the workers? If you use a majority, most of whom have not heard the Debate at all, what have the workers got? The only answer I can make is threat for threat. Act like that, and we will act in the way I have described, and we will see who will get out of it best.

Mr. Isaacs: So much has been said in the language of statesmen as to what is the attitude of the Trades Union Congress that perhaps I may be permitted to say what it is. I am not authorised to speak for the T.U.C.; I speak here as a Member of Parliament, but I happen to know what the T.U.C. wants and, to put it in a few words, it is this: "With all its defects, we want this Bill." I have been twitted and taunted, attempts have been made to get me to make a statement, and when I have done so it has been immediately twisted. I led the T.U.C. delegation in the negotiations with the Government on this Bill, and I want to say at once that we were met with every courtesy and as far as they found it possible to go. I have been connected with wage negotiations many times. When we pleaded for 10s. and came out with 5s. I recommended that acceptance because it was all we could get. [An HON. MEMBER: "By all your members?"] Yes, let me make my own speech. I do not want to bring heat into the discussion, although enough has been slung at me. If the Government like to accept the Amendment to improve this Bill, the T.U.C. will not say, "You must not do it," and if they say they cannot accept the Amendment, the T.U.C. will say, "Well, let us have it." It was not the £1,000 a year men and the demagogues at the top who were consulted; they were T.U.C. delegates, representing all the trade unions.

Mr. Bevan: A speech was made against it by Arthur Horner.

Mr. Isaacs: Arthur Horner helped with the negotiations with the Home Office on this Bill and came to the conclusion that we should accept it because we could not get anything better. He induced the Miners' Federation to support the Bill and stood on the floor of the Congress and said, "With all its defects, we want this Bill." He put all those points. Like others of my colleagues, I do not like that 13 weeks—I said so on the Second Read-

ing, and I have said so all along—but we are prepared to take what we can get. With all its faults, we want this Bill, and I hope the Committee will let us have it.

Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend has told us what is the precise position of the Trades Union Congress. He is a member of the General Council and is, therefore, in a position to report accurately on the stand taken by it. It is perfectly true, as he has represented, that the Trades Union Congress wanted this Bill, but at the same time they expressed the desire that an attempt should be made to secure improvements, and that is the process in which we are at present engaged and to which surely no one in any part of the Committee can take exception. That is the prerogative of every Member. I hope that is quite clear. What is the point at issue as far as procedure is concerned, not discussing the merits of the case at all? It is that, if in the opinion of the Trades Union Congress and of this party without exception it is desirable to secure improvements in the Bill, and this improvement in particular, we are entitled, if we so desire, to vote in support of a specific Amendment, and no one will take exception to that. The Home Secretary says, "If you press this Amendment, which you have a perfect right to do—and the T.U.C. in virtue of their decision cannot take exception to it so it is all above board and quite constitutional—if in short you act within your rights—and no one can take exception to that—and you carry it, we shall withdraw the Bill." What does that mean? This is a matter surely not for this side alone. It means that, in any Measure that comes before us, if a large section of Members support an Amendment, which is carried, the Government can withdraw the Measure, which in effect means that there is not a single Measure that comes before the House which is not in jeopardy if Members take exception to any part of it.
I am not desirous of imparting any heat into the proceedings—there has been sufficient already—but there is not a Member on this side or in any quarter of the Committee who can complain of the action taken by Members on this side. They are constitutionally correct, indeed impeccable. There is no dispute about it. The thing, I imagine, that most of us are concerned with is not procedure, not even the T.U.C., and certainly not the


Employers' Federation. What we are concerned with is, Can we get such an improvement in this Measure as will satisfy all the interests concerned? The Home Secretary says "No." Then what course do we adopt? It is a simple course. If we feel strongly about it, we vote against the Government on this issue, in other words, we support our Amendment.
Who is to support the Amendment? Naturally my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) will support it, because he believes it is a good Amendment. He accepts the principle of the Amendment, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has placed on record his cordial support for the Amendment. Indeed, every hon. Member on this side must in the very nature of the case support this Amendment, because he believes in it. Now the Home Secretary has provided a means of escape for hon. Members on this side who may be disposed to be a little squeamish about supporting the Amendment. He has told us there is no danger of this Amendment being accepted, has told us it will be defeated; so why worry? The only people who will worry are those who will be deprived of adequate compensation. Let us give them some measure of consolation in the knowledge that if the Government are not prepared to go the whole way we at least desire to go the whole way. Surely we can ask for that. I believe that is the best way out of the difficulty.
We are going to be defeated, so the Home Secretary tells us. I presume that is the position. Hon. Members on the other side do not believe in the Amendment. [Interruption.] On which leg do they stand? They believe in the Amendment, the principle underlying the Amendment. They think it is good, but they cannot support it. Why? Because they are afraid the Bill would be lost.

Mr. Baxter: Will the hon. Member allow us to take our own decisions?

Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend asks permission to be allowed to take his own decision.

Mr. Baxter: While the hon. Member was absent I took a decision, and I intend to adhere to it.

Mr. Shinwell: Every hon. Member has a right to take his own decision. It seems

to me that, without any further heat being engendered, our course is clear—that in all the circumstances we are bound to support the Amendment. If it is defeated it cannot be helped. If it is carried I doubt very much—this is my final point, and I want hon. Members on this side to take note of it—whether the Government would withdraw the Bill. Would they go to the Trades Union Congress and say, "We are sorry we must withdraw the Bill because Parliament has decided that this Amendment is sound"? Of course not. I cannot imagine the Home Secretary asking Sir Walter Citrine to meet him to-morrow and saying, "I am sorry, but we must withdraw this Bill because we know that you are not prepared to accept the improvement." What nonsense. It is gibberish. And I cannot understand my right hon. Friend feeling that it would be necessary to go to the British Employers' Confederation and say, "We must withdraw the Bill, because we know you will not accept it," when we have, in fact, been told that they are not very much concerned about the issue at all. In any event, who decides? Not the T.U.C. and not the British Employers' Confederation, but Parliament. Therefore, I doubt whether my right hon. Friend really meant what he said.

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, I did.

Mr. Shinwell: I have known my right hon. Friend for many years and have had a regard, perhaps not an affection, for him, but a regard for him. I am perhaps more truthful than some hon. Members who have talked about their high affection, their undying affection, for the right hon. Gentleman. I only wish he heard what they say behind his back, but never mind about that. The issue is this: The right hon. Gentleman many a time has said, "If you don't agree to this, I shall do so and so." He is a past master in the art of intimidation. Somebody asked whether it was necessary to reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I felt it was necessary, because he was so familiar with that kind of thing. I say to my hon. Friends that if the Amendment should be carried, I am as certain as that I am standing at this Box that there will be an improvement in the Bill. Then we are quite prepared to go as far as to give my right hon. Friend the credit for having provided the im-


provement. We cannot go further than that. I am satisfied that that is the proper way out. We want now to go to a Division and to record our opinion on the issue concerned and take the consequences.

Mr. Hogg: I believe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I believe that the most important thing which has been said in the discussion following the Home Secretary's speech was the remark of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that if the Home Secretary took a particular course which he is constitutionally entitled to do, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale would stump the coalfields and get the men out in a fortnight.

Mr. Bevan: Will the hon. Member tell me what redress the workers will have otherwise, in those circumstances?

Mr. Hogg: I am just about to do so.

Mr. Stokes: What does it matter, anyhow?

Mr. Hogg: A deliberate threat has been made by a Member on the opposite side of the Committee to take extra-constitutional action in the middle of a war to bring out the miners on strike at a time when the troops need—[Interruption.] For him to say that, means that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has shown himself in his true colours, as an enemy of democracy, an enemy of his country, an enemy of the organised working-class movements of this country. The hon. Gentleman has asked me what his remedy will be. I will tell him. If this House does not approve of the action of the Home Secretary, the remedy is to see that there is another Home Secretary and not to stump the coalfields.

Mr. Shinwell: How is he to do so?

Mr. Hogg: I hope the Home Secretary is supported, and I shall certainly give him support. All I can say is that that is the constitutional position. If the hon. Gentleman is a friend of this country and of the Constitution, he must accept it. What has seemed to me, as a person—and I scarcely hope to be believed—who really does wish the party opposite well, to arise out of this Debate is. How can we on this side of the Committee regard that party seriously when we are presented with a spectacle such as we have seen to-day? [Interruption.]

Mr. J. J. Davidson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be well when the Committee is showing some inclination to go to a Division that we should have one speaker at a time, and that he should be allowed to finish his speech.

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Hogg: Whenever the Labour Party get a little criticism, I notice they try to stop the discussion. There are times when there must be plain speaking, and the spectacle to which we have been treated to-day is one of them. We heard the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale calling the Home Secretary, one of his leaders, a squalid backstairs, Tammany Hall politician. That being so, we on this side of the Committee are asked to treat that party seriously. We are presented with an agreement on the Bill in which the Trades Union Congress have admittedly said that they will accept this as an interim Measure, exactly what we have said on Second Reading, but we are told that—

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have kept out of this, but I have got the whole of the facts documented here, so that if they were challenged they could be given. The only point I want to make to get it on record is that the trade unions of this country have made it quite clear that they accepted this temporary Measure without prejudice and without prejudicing the Parliamentary rights of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Hogg: I hope that nobody would prejudice the rights of my hon. Friend or anybody else, nor would I attempt to do so, but if we are to collaborate with the parties of the Left, it must be clearly understood—[Interruption]—we are collaborating in supporting a Government, at least some of us are, and if we are to continue in this way, it must be clearly understood that the tail does not always wag the dog. It is a characteristic of those parties over there sometimes to repudiate the agreements made by their leaders and to betray them from time to time. I believe myself that the Labour Party would have been in power in this country before now if it had not been for that abiding


characteristic. During the war we do want to work with them, but we cannot work with them if they are always repudiating their own leaders. I shall support the Home Secretary, whom I regard as a courageous statesman and a lover of his country against the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, the enemy of democracy and the enemy of this country.

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Woodburn: The Amendment that has been moved to-day is one which no one in the Committee can say is unreasonable in so far as nobody is prepared to say that a young man who has to pay 35s. for lodgings does not need at least that amount and something beyond it, and the Members who have moved it and argued it in reasonable fashion are carrying out their duties in this Committee in a reasonable way. The speeches we have listened to from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) are both invitations to anarchy in the conduct of affairs. Whenever a fight develops in the House of Commons or dissension develops in, the party to which I belong, the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) can be relied upon to take part, whether it is a private fight or not. When we are going to conduct the government of the country in this House, we have the choice of doing it in an orderly fashion, or by anarchy, and I prefer to accept the position of working through orderly channels.
In the midst of war it has been accepted by my party, as well as by the party opposite, that so far as possible we should proceed with agreed legislation. Because there is not time in the House for the ordinary party controversy, and for dealing with Bills in detail, the principle has been accepted that, so far as possible, agreement should be come to on Bills before Parliament discusses them. This party, and its component parts, agreed to accept this Bill as an interim Measure. While the miners that I represent do not regard 35s. as enough, they regard it as necessary that they shall conduct their negotiations through their organisations, and abide by the decisions made by those organisations. It is possible to argue that we should double the amount given to the married man. It is possible to

argue anything, and to make a fight about it. What we want is the maximum of progress in the minimum of time. As I understand it, our movement has accepted this Bill as an interim Measure, as a compromise for the bigger Bill which is coming along. I am not prepared to accept the anarchy lead of the hon. Member for Seaham, who never seems to stand even by his own decisions, or the anarchy of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). I support the movement to which I belong, fully and faithfuly.

Mr. Baxter: I am very sorry to intrude upon this party truce, but for those who were not here for part of this Debate, I merely want to explain why I am going to vote against the Government. Considering the friends I am leaving behind me and the friends I am going to acquire, I think I am entitled to say a word of explanation. This Debate took place with one speech after another in favour of the Amendment, and not one speech against it, until at a certain point the Under-Secretary, quite sincerely but in a perfunctory four or five sentences—[Interruption]. I am sorry, because I admire him so much; but it was a short speech—indicated that this was done so as not to cut across the principles of the Beveridge Report. Then he sat down. I, with one or two of my hon. Friends, said that the Government had not adequately answered the case for the Amendment. No attention was paid, and not until the acting Leader of the Opposition pressed him did the Home Secretary rise to his feet. An agreed Measure has come to this Committee, and if the Government have an agreement, this Committee is expected to put its rubber stamp to it. The dignity of the House has been affronted to-day. I do not claim anything for the speeches of Members of the Opposition but I claim that the Home Secretary's speech was in no way a reply to what was said, and when he indicated that we were bullying him, the truth was that all we asked him to do, in view of the sense of the Committee, was to consider this matter for the Report stage. There is not a Member here who would deny that, and yet the Home Secretary chose to speak in terms of resentment and anger. It is because I would like extra money for these men and because I wish to support the waning dignity and power of the House of Commons that I am going to vote for the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."

Division No. 27.
AYES.



Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Gibson, Sir C. G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Gledhill, G.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Agnew, Comdr. P. G.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Petherick, Major M.


Ammon, C. G.
Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Gretton, J. F.
Procter, Major H. A.


Barnes, A. J.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Guy, W. H.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Beechman, N. A.
Hammersley, S. S.
Ridley, G.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Hannah, I. C.
Ritson, J.


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Salt, E. W.


Blair, Sir R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Higgs, W. F.
Silkin, L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Hulbert, Wing-Commander N. J.
Smith, T. (Ncrmanton)


Bull, B. B.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)
Isaacs, G. A.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Carver, Colonel W. H.
Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cary, R. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Charleton, H. C.
Jennings, R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Jewson, P. W.
Suirdale, Viscount


Conant, Major R. J. E.
John, W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Johnston, Rt. Hn. T. (St'l'g &amp; C'km'n)
Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Tate, Mavis C.


Critchley, A.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lakin, C. H. A.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Culverwell, C. T.
Lancaster, Lieut.-Col. C. C.
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lawson, J. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leach, W.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Denville, Alfred
Linstead, H. N.
Watkins, F. C.


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley)
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Loftus, P. C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Mabane, W.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Eccles, D. M.
McKie, J. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mander, G. le M.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)
Manningham-Buller, Major R. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mathers, G.
Woodburn, A.


Etherton, Ralph
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Woolley, Major W. E.


Fermoy, Lord
Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.
Molson, A. H. E.
Wright, Group-Capt. J. (Erdington)


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)
York, Major C.


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Gates, Major E. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'broke)
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibbins, J.
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
Mr. Boulton and Mr. Pym.




NOES.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Naylor, T. E.


Barr, J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Oldfield, W. H.


Barstow, P. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Price, M. P.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Pritt, D. N.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Grenfell, D. R.
Shinwell, E.


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Sloan, A.


Bowles, F. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Stephen, C.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Kirkwood, D.
Stokes, R. R.


Buchanan, G.
Lipson, D. L.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Burke, W. A.
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Butcher, H. W.
MacLaren, A.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Cape, T.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
White, H. (Derby, N. E.)


Cocks, F. S.
Mainwaring, W. H.



Cove, W. G.
Maxton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Daggar, G.
Mort, D. L.
Mr. Bernard Taylor and




Mr. Foster.

Mr. Foster: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out:
who was married to him at the time of the accident.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 42.

The object of this Amendment will be obvious. It deals with the principle of post-injury marriages. This principle has been debated from time to time. In the


Debate on the setting up of war pensions tribunals both sides agreed to the principle of post-war marriages in regard to war pensions and the Minister accepted it. A new principle has been introduced into this Bill with respect to weekly payments for the wife of a married man. That was not embodied in the Act of 1940. The conditions governing the children's allowance, that the children must be born within nine months after the injury, has been carried forward into this Clause. I should like to ask the Home Secretary, without using any further arguments, to agree to the principle, and I hope we shall not have the protracted discussion that we had on the previous Amendment.

Mr. Peake: This Amendment would import into the Bill the principle of recognising post-accident marriage. That is, a man who married after the date of an accident, would become entitled to the wife's allowance in whole, if he was suffering from total disability, or to a proportion of the wife's allowance if he was suffering from partial disability. This matter was discussed in 1940 when the Supplementary Allowances Act was before Parliament, and I had to point out then, that it was not possible or reasonable, in the view of the Government, to place upon employers a greater degree of liability than the State itself accepts in regard to persons disabled in the service of the State. It is true, as the hon. Member said, that an inroad upon that principle of not recognising post-accident marriage has been made, but it is in one case only. It was announced in the Debate on 20th July by the Lord President of the Council when we debated the new Royal Warrant for Service pensions. That concession was made as I say, in only one case, that of the disabled ex-Service man, and it applied only where the disabled person was wholly unemployable. This Amendment would apply generally to all cases of industrial disability, whether total or partial, and at whatever time they occurred, whether before the passing of this Act or after it. That is going far beyond what has been undertaken in the case of the wholly disabled and wholly unemployable ex-Service man, and I cannot ask the Committee to accept the Amendment
This is a temporary Bill. It is limited in duration to three years, by which time we shall have, I hope, a more permanent scheme in operation. This is a perfectly

proper point to be taken into account when the long-term scheme comes to be framed, and of course it will not be overlooked, but I do not think it would be reasonable to import this liability into this Measure, especially as it covers partial incapacity as well as total incapacity. Moreover, it would add very greatly to the difficulties of the insurance companies in setting aside the appropriate reserves to meet the old cases, because they could not possibly tell what it was proper to set aside when their liabilities might be increased at any moment through the marriage of a man in receipt of workmen's compensation. I hope, as I have made that explanation of the Government's attitude, and also promised that this point will be looked at very carefully in framing the long-term scheme, that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: In the now still waters of the Debate we have had the first conciliatory speech from the other side, but I submit that the Under-Secretary has made out no case against this Amendment. He spoke of the difficulties of insurance companies, saying they could not put by enough money to meet unspecified liabilities. What would it amount to—£500,000? I do not think there is any great substance in that point. The next reason was that the Amendment would be retrospective, going back to 1924. A third point was that it applied to wholly disabled men and partially disabled men. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment in the case of men who are wholly disabled. A time is usually reached when those men become partially disabled and if he accepted one he would automatically accept both things.
We have to look at this problem in the same way as it has been looked at in the Royal Warrant, which has said that, if a citizen of this country is totally disabled in the Services he shall not be debarred from a normal life, if possible, but shall be entitled to have his own home and family. What the hon. Gentleman says is that the man who is totally disabled by injury, is not entitled to a normal life; that, in addition to his injuries there shall be a denial to him of a normal life. We have had a row about the addition of a new principle. How new is it in the case of fatal accidents? A man may have,


say, pneumoconiosis, and after he has come on compensation for total disablement, he marries. If he dies his wife is entitled to a lump sum in workmen's compensation. It is not altogether a new principle. This unspecified liability is already accepted in fatal cases; why can it not be accepted in cases of disablement?
I submit that this has a relationship to what has been said before in this Debate. The right hon. Gentleman pinned himself to the Beveridge Report in regard to the inclusion of the 13 weeks. Surely the same argument can be used for accepting the Amendment. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give further consideration to this important point. Men are being conscripted for industry and for work in the mines. Are we to tell them that if they are permanently disabled by their patriotic effort, they will be denied a normal life thereafter? That is something different to what is done for the Forces and for Civil Defence workers. The Royal Warrant covers not only those categories but also the women's Services, yet men in industry, outside Government employment, are to be treated differently. I press that the Amendment be accepted.

Mr. Bowles: One of the important facts about the Debates of the House of Commons is that they are reported. I am certain that the public to-morrow will not be convinced by the Government's replies and arguments on either of these Amendments. First, the right hon. Gentleman refused to accept the Amendment because he refused in 1940, saying that he then told us that there was no case for an improvement of this kind. That argument does not apply to-day because an exception has been made in the case of Service people. Is there any logical distinction between men and women conscripted into the Forces and those conscripted into industry? I can see no difference whatever. This refusal is obviously a completely irrational one. It will not hold water at all, and I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) will show the Committee again that we are only going to be persuaded by argument and not by overwhelming numbers. I hope therefore that on this occasion those Members who associated with us in the previous vote will show that they are unsatisfied with the Government's refusal on this particular issue as well.

Mr. Tinker: I wish to press this Amendment for certain reasons of my own. I am on what is called the Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Pensions. We advocated there recognition of the soldier who left the Service disabled and then married. I did not get all I wanted. We came to the Floor of the House, and the House agreed that a man permanently disabled, unable to work, who married afterwards should have the same rights as a soldier who was married before he left the Service. The whole position has changed so far as industry is concerned. We have what is called "opting" into the mines, that is, sending into the mines young men who have the choice between the Services or the mines. The same principle should apply to a young man who goes into industry as an alternative to going into the Services, who gets maimed, and who marries afterwards, because he is serving the State by going into industry. Why should he not have the same rights as the man in the Army? A man permanently disabled—

Mr. Peake: And, of course, wholly unemployable. That is the test.

Mr. Tinker: The term is "totally unemployable," but he is allowed to earn a living. All we are asking, for the time being, is that the same principle be admitted here. I do not like the Government saying "This has not happened before and we cannot do it now." After what has been done for the soldier, our case is much stronger, and I would ask for reconsideration of this matter because it does bear hardly on these young men who are going into the mines. We are asking for more children. We are telling men and women to get married and have children. Is this the way to encourage them? They should be encouraged to marry, because the children are the assets of the State. This is an indication of what might be done, and I hope that the Home Secretary will adopt it.

Mr. Sloan: One of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman was that insurance companies would not know how to make their assessments. I do not think we need legislate for insurance companies to-day. The people who are responsible are the employers, and, as is very often the case, all the money paid in compensation comes out of industry. In our own industry we have it in the ascertainment. The cost


for compensation of all kinds is 5d. per ton. We sometimes fight law cases in the courts. The result is that we pay the law expenses as the owners and of the insurance companies, and we pay our own. Surely the amount that would be required would be a bagatelle compared to that which is paid in compensation—and that is very little, after all. The Home Secretary has said that up to the present we have been paying £12,000,000 and that this new legislation is going to bring it up to £17,500,000 in compensation—out of a national income of £5,000,000,000 or £6,000,000,000. The Prime Minister should look at those figures. In our industry one out of every four boys between the ages of 14 and 16 is killed or injured. Many lads between 14 and 20 who are injured are never able to work again; but they are able to live, and it is important that they should enjoy the normal life of human beings. Why the right hon. Gentleman should shut his mind to a reasonable proposal like this, I cannot understand. It seems terrible that a Bill should be brought in, and that there should be no opportunity for improvement, because the last word has been said by the promoters when the Bill is laid on the Table. If the right hon. Gentleman says that this very slight benefit cannot be introduced into this Bill because instructions have been given, we have reached the end of Parliamentary Government, and it is hardly worth while carrying on, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether it is not possible to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I want to make a plea that the Debate on this Amendment should be removed slightly from the coalmines. I could argue the case for the miners, for about one-tenth of the nation's coal is obtained within a few miles of the centre of my division, but I want to make the Government realise, from an entirely different angle, that there is a danger here. A few months ago young men were glorified, and indeed decorated, because they were what the nation knew as back-room boys. They were taken from technical schools. Some of them would have liked to have gone into some branch of His Majesty's Forces, but, because they were skilled in some branch of industry, they were told that they would serve the Ministry of Supply, or Ministry of Production, in one

of our arsenals and became back-room boys. At least three of them were blinded. Their fellow students were able to join the Royal Engineers or the Royal Air Force, yet these young men, searching for some formula for a new explosive, were blinded. It is not just compensation for coalminers that we are discussing. You say to the lads who are in the Fighting Services that if they are totally incapacitated and marry afterwards you will recognise the fact that they are married and will at least pay a pension. That is exactly what this House has done in the last six months. What of the men who were sent to Woolwich Arsenal whose names appeared in the newspapers? We were glad to read the story, which had been held up for over 18 months, and were proud of the fact that these men had sacrificed themselves for Britain and for science. But to the men directed into industry and not to the Air Force, you say that, if they marry, you cannot recognise any compensation rights. I have given an illustration of something of which I know.
The Under-Secretary knows that we have a large number of members in the union with which we have been associated. Men employed in search of formulas needed at the present time have been blinded, and I would ask the Under-Secretary whether he wants to drive men like myself into this frame of mind, that, come what may, we will challenge and denounce the Government for their stupidity and their resolute resistance to all forms of reasonableness. Reasonableness from this side of the Committee has repeatedly been resisted by the Government to-day. On the question of soldiers' pensions, may I remind the Under-Secretary that there was a sort of tornado in this House against His Majesty's Government on the question of pensions for the Armed Forces? It crystallised into hostility and resulted in a challenge to the Government, and they had to respond to the challenge. We cannot understand why, if they only accepted part of the formula in the pensions Debate, they cannot accept that particular part of the formula in this Bill. Cannot we make further representations at this late hour and see that, in dealing with the young men in the Armed Forces and in coalmines and in other industries, they are treated alike?

Mr. Grenfell: I do not know whether it is much use asking the right hon. Gentleman to consider the arguments that have been put forward. I have been painfully surprised at the trend of the discussion during the whole of the day. We have not discussed the Bill in the House of Commons spirit and in accordance with Parliamentary practice. The right hon. Gentleman has said something which should have been emphasised earlier in the Debate. He said that this is the one and only Bill that is likely to come before the House in the next three years.

Mr. Peake: Mr. Peake indicated dissent.

Mr. Grenfell: There is no likelihood of any substitute Bill being brought in during that period. Is there any likelihood of a Bill being brought in during the next 12 months or before a General Election? We ought to know. The conditions put down by the Government vary so much. On the present Amendment the Government say that they cannot have innovations. I remember the difficult position in which Members found themselves 21 years ago. The Minister of Pensions will remember that it was impossible to effect any compromise or to get any concession from the then Minister of Pensions in the case of a man who married, after his removal from the Services to hospital for treatment for wounds. A person who was not married before he was removed from duty, could not claim in respect of his wife, and the wife could not get any pension after his death. That has been changed and, it is very proper that it should have been changed. That is the line which Parliament in its wisdom has followed in the last few years. It was decided that the question of the equality of the sexes should be referred to a Select Committee of the House. I was a member of that Select Committee. There were 15 persons on it and we had no difficulty in making recommendations to the House, and the House had no difficulty in accepting the recommendation of equality between the sexes.
Here is a point which is very unfair indeed. It is not enough for a Minister to say that you disturb the insurance computations in these matters. They have no means of knowing whether a man is married or not, or what number of children are born during the marriage. But compensation is payable to children

under the Bill. Insurance is not a question of computing each case but of spreading the burden over a number of cases. There are many good reasons why a man should get married after he has received injuries. Such a man often needs a helpmeet and someone to live with him very much more than the man who is not disabled, and in ordinary circumstances a man who is disabled will seek a wife because he needs a companion. In this Bill we propose not to pay the wife of a person who was not married at the date of the accident but if she was married a week before she will be paid.
Let me put this case. Supposing a person was about to be married, that there was no doubt at all about it and that just before the marriage the man receives an injury, perhaps loses the use of both legs and is unable to move about. Nine times out of ten the girl wants to marry the man. But the Minister says, "You cannot do anything for that case, because the insurance company finds it impossible to compute that kind of risk." Is the right hon. Gentleman pleading for the insurance companies? Does he not recognise that they always cover themselves? The Holman Gregory Committee investigated this matter in 1919 and I am sorry to say that, so far, the provisions they have recommended have not been introduced. I have made hundreds of optimistic speeches on the prospects of implementing that Committee's Report, which was progressive and conduced to a higher standard of comfort for men who are disabled. But no, we meet this kind of argument. It was stated that insurance companies keep for themselves 8s. 6d. out of every £1 they receive and return to workmen, in all kinds of benefits, no more than 11s. 6d. Do not be too considerate for the interests of the insurance companies. They can manage for themselves all right. In the mining industry workmen pay 85 per cent. of the total cost of compensation.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member but this is a rather narrow point and if on every one of these Amendments we are to go into the whole history of insurance we shall not make much progress.

Mr. Grenfell: I do not wish to go into the history of insurance. I have played my part in honest agitation to create a


public conscience on this matter and we are trying to convince the Government of the day that this country, which is fighting for its life now, is neglecting the interests of the men who are crippled. I am entitled to express my sincere regret that the Under-Secretary should bring forward the sort of argument I have indicated. Some way must be found of doing justice to these people. We are not doing it now. If we are not to discuss these points and have replies to them then let us take the Amendments, one by one, and vote on them in the way we wish to vote.

Dr. Morgan: I am anxious that this Bill should be passed as early as possible and I do not intend to indulge in any attacks on the Under-Secretary because I know that the whole matter of compensation is undergoing review in the Home Office. I do, however, plead with him to look at this point again and see whether he cannot meet it on the Report stage. The Royal Warrant with regard to Service compensation has changed the whole aspect of compensation in this regard, but from the medical point of view you can land yourself in considerable difficulties, if you make a division between the partially and totally incapacitated. Take, for instance, asbestosis or even ordinary silicosis. An invalid may, at one time, be only partially incapacitated but at any moment he may have superimposed the infection of tuberculosis. If he passes from being partially incapacitated to being totally incapacitated, and you say you will give that man, who is married, no compensation at one moment and then give compensation later when the medical board is satisfied, you will find yourself in endless difficulty. The point about the difficulty for the actuaries of insurance companies has no substance because they can do it quite easily. I ask the Under-Secretary, with particular reference to this question of post-invalidity marriage, to look at this matter again and see whether he can do the clean, honest and decent thing. I know of a man in my constituency, working in an asbestos factory, who is engaged to be married. His work is a dangerous occupation; he is liable to asbestosis at any time. Supposing he suddenly developed the symptoms of this industrial disease, are you to tell him that because he has this disability, he must postpone his marriage, because when he gets worse and is totally

incapacitated he will not get any compensation? I do ask the Government, once more to look into this matter and see whether they cannot bring forward some proposal for the Report stage.

Mr. Butcher: I hope the Under-Secretary will endeavour to see whether he can meet us on this point although I am bound to say that, from the language which the Home Secretary used earlier, it appears that this is also a case which has been covered by the deal with other interests outside this House and that all that is required of us is that we should talk and talk and be out-voted by the pressure of the Whips. I do not think the question of the convenience of insurance companies is a material point, because in the case of tariff companies, as the Minister will be aware, there is an agreement for the return of excessive premiums secured and not required to cover the working expenses, plus profits, of the offices concerned. Should he see his way clear, despite the deal which has been done, to meet the wishes expressed in all parts of the Committee, the burden would not fall on the insurance companies but upon the insured themselves and the employers. Therefore, I hope that the Under-Secretary will say that he is prepared to reconsider the matter and bring forward some Amendment on the Report Stage.

Mr. Peake: I gave what I thought was a not unsympathetic reply when I spoke earlier on this Amendment. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) and several other Members have made eloquent pleas for the sort of case, which is a very hard case. That is the case of the man who is totally and permanently incapacitated—a long-term case—who desires to get married after the accident. But I must remind hon. Members that what we are dealing with is the Amendment on the Paper, and that covers not only long-term but short-term cases, and we know that 90 per cent. of workmen's compensation cases last for less than 13 weeks. The average duration of a case is about four weeks. Moreover, of long-term cases quite a good proportion are cases of only partial incapacity. The precedent which has been quoted is that of the Amendment to the Royal Warrant in July, which covers the case of the man who as a result of injury in war service is wholly unemployable. I entirely agree that you could


not make a logical division between cases of total and partial incapacity under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The only test, if you are going to draw a line anywhere, is that of total unemployability.
The Amendment goes a long way beyond the precedent set by the Royal Warrant, and, quite clearly, it is unacceptable. Many employers contend, with a great deal of force, that it is not the employer's function to provide an allowance in respect of wife or children at all. I do not think it a proper provision, even in the more limited form of total unemployability, to import into a temporary Measure of this character for which the employer is responsible and, moreover, a Measure which is applied retrospectively to all the old cases as well as those arising in the future. I promised the hon. Member that a more limited application of the principle introduced into the Royal Warrant will be carefully examined in connection with any future permanent scheme of workmen's compensation, but I cannot undertake to introduce it into this Bill.

Mr. Bevan: I think the Committee is undergoing an unnecessary humiliation in arguing this and similar Amendments any further. It is hard enough to argue a case to a packed Committee, especially when the Whips get to work and bring the supporters of the Government in, but it is infinitely worse when you not only have to argue with a packed jury but with a jury which has already made up its mind before hearing the case. I therefore suggest that the best course we can follow is to divide on our Amendments and not expose ourselves to the humiliation of trying to convince people who are not going to be convinced. The Under-Secretary made a very conciliatory speech, but it was only the form that changed. The words are the same. He says that in the examination of the permanent Measure he will give consideration to this principle. We know that he will. He is bound to consider it, because you cannot have it accepted in the Royal Warrant and refused in other forms of social insurance. There is something sickeningly humiliating in arguing to a Committee which intends anyhow to support the Government, a Government which has made a bargain and does not intend to give way on it or make any

modification. The issue has now shifted from the House to outside the House. Therefore I seriously suggest that the best thing we can do is to vote on these Amendments and allow the Government and the House of Commons to accept the consequences of their conduct in the constituencies and in the industries.

Mr. Foster: The Amendment has given us an opportunity of making out our case, which has been partially accepted by the Under-Secretary. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sloan: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, after "accident," to insert:
or a female workman who has a husband wholly dependent upon her at the time of the accident.
Here is an Amendment which I think the right hon. Gentleman can accept without making any concession to principle at all, that in circumstances where a female workman has a husband wholly dependent on her at the time of the accident she should be in the same position as a male worker who has a wife dependent on him. It is very difficult to make any discrimination. If a husband is entitled to payment because of his wife who is dependent upon him, the wife should surely be equally entitled to payment for a husband who is totally dependent on her.

Dr. Morgan: I hope that the word "accident" in the Amendment will include disease.

Mr. Peake: I think the hon. Member may be reassured as far as the definition is concerned but, when we look at the Amendment, it provides that a female workman with a husband wholly dependent on her shall qualify for the supplement provided by the Bill. We have sought all through this temporary legislation, beginning in 1940, to exclude any question of dependency or any inquiries by employers or insurance companies as to dependency, and for that reason we grant the allowances in respect of a wife quite irrespective of whether there is any dependency or not, and exactly the same thing, of course, applies in regard to children. All the workman has to do is to complete a form saying that he has a wife and so many children. Those are


facts which are ascertainable if the insurance company or the employer wishes to make an inquiry by reference to the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths. That is perfectly simple and broad and clear. Of course it will result in a certain number of men getting allowances in respect of wives whom they are not living with and possibly not maintaining. On the other hand, it does have the great advantage of avoiding inquiries by employers into the domestic circumstances of workmen.
The drawback to this Amendment is that it introduces the words "wholly dependent," and that opens up a vista of inquiries by insurance companies and employers into the extent of the dependence of the husband upon the earnings of the wife. There may be a few hard cases where a man is wholly dependent upon the earnings of his wife, but I think that at the present time they are cases of extraordinary rarity. There must be very few cases where a man is in receipt of no sickness benefit, no unemployment benefit, no pension of any sort, and is entirely dependent upon the earnings of his wife. In order to pick out such cases we should open up this question of dependency, with all the inquiries that it involves, and the natural result would be that we should have to provide for similar inquiries as to dependency in the case of wives and children. That I am anxious to avoid, and for that reason I think it would be a mistake to introduce this Amendment. I hope that hon. Members opposite are not all like the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), who seems to think that the whole of our discussion is a waste of time. That is not so. If he looks a little further down the Order paper, he will find that as a result of inquiries made since the Bill was introduced the Government have found a flaw in it and have put down an Amendment.

Mr. Foster: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the trouble it will be to find out the degree of the dependency. I can assure him there would be no more trouble or difficulty than there is at present in the case of a male. In Lancashire we have married women working on the pit bank, married women with children, and if one of them met with an accident she would have to fill in a form just as a man does. Forms are

provided by the colliery company. It is a questionnaire, and they fill it in and send it along with the claim. Then the company communicate either with the insurance company or the indemnity company and the compensation is determined. There would be no difficulty in that connection.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out "male."
This Sub-section of the Clause provides that in the case of a male workman who has children under the age of 15 a supplementary allowance shall be granted not exceeding 5s. a week. The purpose of the Amendment is to strike out the word "male," so that the provision shall apply to male and female workers. Under this Bill a widower with children will, if injured in his employment, get an allowance in respect of those children, but a widow with children who is in employment and suffers an injury will receive no allowance for her children. I cannot understand why the Home Secretary, assisted by the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, should perpetrate such an injustice against the woman. The Select Committee on equal compensation laid it down as a principle that men and women should be treated alike. There can be no argument against accepting this Amendment. None of the arguments the Under-Secretary has raised on previous Amendments apply here. There is no question of proving dependency, no investigations; there is no more trouble in the case of the widow with children than there would be in the case of the widower. The human need is the same, if not greater, and as a matter of equity the widow and the widower should be treated alike.
I recall the furore that was created by the lady Members of Parliament some time ago, but not one of them is present now except the Parliamentary Secretary, although this is a vital question for women engaged in industry. Industry is absorbing more and more women, and obviously more widows with children, and women who are likely to become widows, and yet we are saying that none of those women shall be entitled to what is to be given to the men. You may call a large conference in the Albert Hall to thank the women for all that they have done; it may cost £17,000; but you refuse to give to those


women who are injured in industry allowances for their children, because they are widows. To accept this Amendment would not upset the balance of the Bill. It would not be in conflict with the Beveridge scheme or in conflict with any principle laid down by Parliament. It is not in conflict with the agitation conducted by the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary who, I should have imagined, would have been of some considerable assistance in this matter in the Home Office. This is an issue of principle, and if the Under-Secretary cannot give us a satisfactory reply we propose to divide the Committee.

Mr. Peake: I can put the Government point of view on this Amendment quite shortly, because it was the subject of corespondence in "The Times" not long ago, and in reply to somebody who raised exactly this point in "The Times" I wrote:
Shortly, the reason for the exclusion of the children of female workmen"—
that is a technical term in workmen's compensation—
is that it is undesirable to provide more than one set of children's allowances in respect of the same children. For example, if the husband is serving in His Majesty's Forces children's allowances are provided. If be has been disabled as a result of industrial accident, war service or enemy action he will himself be in receipt of children's allowances. Alternatively, if he is a wage earner he is responsible for their maintenance; and if unemployed his children will already be provided for under the insurance or assistance schemes.
The hon. Gentleman called in aid, in respect of his argument in favour of this Amendment, the Report of the Select Committee on Equal Compensation. That Committee examined the supplementary allowances Act, 1940, which provided these allowances for children in respect of male workmen. That Committee, which included three vigilant women Members of this House, the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) and the hon. Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir), came to the following conclusions which were stated twice in the body of their Report. My hon. Friend will find them in paragraphs 13 and 32. In paragraph 13 they say in respect of sex differentiation:
The principle is not to be found in the Workmen's Compensation Act, under which compensation is based on a scale related to the previous earnings of the injured worker

In paragraph 32 they say:
It has already been shown that no principle of sex discrimination can be found in the Workmen's Compensation Acts.
If those ladies had felt there was a grievance here from which women suffered, they would have observed it and drawn attention to it in the Report of their Select Committee.

Mr. Sloan: Never mind the ladies' answer; give us your own answer.

Mr. Peake: I have given the answer that it is undesirable to provide two sets of children's allowances in respect of the same child, and in each of those cases where a woman worker claims children's allowances you would have to inquire to find out whether there was a second set of children's allowances or whether those children had been provided for by their father in some other way.
There has been correspondence on this very point between the hon. Member for Frome and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for Frome took the point up with a great deal of zeal. She thought that she was on a good wicket, but after receiving the explanation of my right hon. Friend she dropped her claim; so I hardly think that, the hon. Lady having been satisfied on this point—and hon. Members know how persistent she can be—other hon. Members need press the matter. It would mean inquiries into individual circumstances and proof of maintenance, in order to pick out a very few cases of hardship which may arise.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The Under-Secretary has just stated that the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) was batting on a bad wicket. He never batted on a worse wicket in his life. I am satisfied that the Trades Union Congress and the deputation that met the Home Secretary have not gone into this matter at all but have missed it entirely. The Under-Secretary states that they cannot have a child receiving allowances from two sources. He has been a Private Member, and I know that we used to fight like Kilkenny cats, he and myself, in the other Chamber, before the war, on compensation and other questions. Nobody knows better than he that the children of a father who was fatally injured in industry get both N.H.I., which is 5s. for the first child and 3s. for the second, and compensation


when they go to the county courts, The county court judge does not say to the widow and the trades union secretary, "Are you getting N.H.I.?" The judge gives the amount that is necessary for the children. Suppose a single man is killed who has dependants or a married man with no children. The maximum amount was £300, but if they have children the amount can be extended to £600., The judge does not say to the widow, "Was your husband National Health insured?" The compensation case is not set for the next day after the man is killed, but in a couple of weeks the widow draws her National Health Insurance pension and her 5s. and 3s. for the children. The judge does not say, "Are you getting your pension and the allowance for the children? If so, I must take them into account." The Under-Secretary says that that is his chief reason. He does not want it from two sources, but I say that they have been giving it from two sources for 30 years.

Mr. Peake: Surely my hon. Friend cannot mean that, because there are already two sets of children's allowances, there should be a third set on top of them?

Mr. Griffiths: The Under-Secretary of State is not far-seeing enough. It is not a matter of having another on top of them. The Minister of Labour has been asking women up to 55 to go into industry. How many of those women may be widows with no N.H.I. pension? Thousands of women do not draw pension, as their husband was not State-insured, but you ask them to go into industry. There are thousands of widows in Lancashire on the pit brow at present and in factories. The Inspector of Factories says that 330,000 people met with accidents, and he states that the majority were women. I will guarantee that there are hundreds of widows among them who have children and are injured, but because they happen to have the misfortune of being born women instead of men the Under-Secretary says that their children cannot receive the 5s. I say that it is unjust. I also say that I am satisfied that the Home Secretary himself and the Trades Union Congress deputation, of which my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) was a member, had not seen this thing, or else my hon. Friend would not have sat down quietly to it.
Up to now the Government have given us nothing. They have brushed the single man on one side—the single man who may want to get married and enjoy the sweets of life as well as to increase the population about which folks on the other side have been grousing, because the population is down. And yet this thing says that if a man gets hurt we are not going to give him anything if he marries. I am leaving that, because I know I am out of Order. Now it is being said, "We will not give to the widow." I say this is unjust. I am asking the Under-Secretary not just to put this thing down and say, "We are not going to do it because it is a bit intricate. We should have to make inquiries." You would not have to make inquiries. You know whether the widow has any children or not. I ask the Under-Secretary to get up and say, "I did not see it like this before, and I will grant it."

Mr. F. Anderson: Is it not possible for a widow, in the event of a fatality taking place, to be not entitled to any benefit for the children under the National Health Insurance Act, and not to qualify either for the widow's pension or any other allowances? Surely there should be some provision made in those circumstances. As I understand it, she would not be getting two sets of allowances in these cases; there would be only one set.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. F. Anderson) have addressed themselves to the question of the widow, but of course the Amendment is much wider than that. It covers the children of all female workmen. That is to say, all the married women would come in under the Amendment. So far as widows are concerned, however—

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a married woman. If she has her husband he, not the woman, claims for the child.

Mr. Peake: That is exactly what I have been pointing out. If you give children's allowances to every married woman under the Act, you will be doing what is in many cases quite unnecessary and duplicating a set of children's allowances. The hon. Member for Whitehaven asks whether it is not possible that there may


be a widow not provided for at all. That is possible, but the vast majority of widows are provided for under the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Pensions Acts from 1924 to 1929, or under one of the Royal Warrants or other schemes for providing pensions for persons suffering misfortune and widowhood. In order to pick out cases, we should have to empower employers and insurance companies to make far-reaching inquiries, and as we hope that this scheme is to be swept away in two or three years, it does not seem to be worth while embarking on that.

Mr. G. Griffiths: May I put this point? We are not claiming two sets of allowances. We are only claiming if the woman herself has the child, not the husband. I suppose that is the reason the right hon. Gentleman has refused it. If that is the reason, accept it now.

Mr. Peake: It is certainly general in the Amendment.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I hope the right hon. Gentleman having shown himself so conciliatory will reconsider this point. There is not only the case of a widow which he admits will be a hard case. There is also the case of the unmarried mother. There are a number of unmarried mothers who are workmen and would not be provided for, as a I understand it.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member will be aware that the mother in that position has rights against the father of the child, which she may or may not have exercised. Obviously inquiries on that point, which would be most embarrassing, would have to be made.

Mr. Harvey: In many cases those rights have not been exercised, and the mother has the whole responsibility for the children. That is a human fact which has to be considered. As this Bill is only temporary, if the real objection is to double allowances, it should be possible to provide that this will not apply where an allowance is already being paid in respect of such children. I do not think this would involve any elaborate inquiries to find out whether or not an allowance was being paid in respect of a child. A statement might be signed to that effect and if it was a false statement, penalties could

be exacted. The statement to be signed could be extremely simple and a requirement could be made that it must be signed before the allowance is paid. If the Home Secretary were willing to reconsider that, he would meet a very real case of hardship. I hope there are not a great number but there will certainly be a number of very real cases of hardship.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I want to put one point in regard to the widows, and to ask whether the question of the widows could be considered before the Bill comes back from another place. It is true that we have a considerable number of widows who are not insured by right of the husband's insurance at all, and the fact remains that these widows are, of necessity, increasingly forced into industry. I know a case of a young man and wife with two or three children, who came home from Australia. They are very industrious energetic people. He worked for 105 weeks but unfortunately there were two weeks sickness on which there was no stamp available. The result is that there were only 103 stamps on his card when he died. This widow was forced into employment because she had no right in respect of her husband's insurance. I think one can appreciate that where such circumstances arise and there are children there is necessity for the woman to go into industry to help to maintain the children. With regard to widows I put this point: The Under-Secretary has had a long experience of the coal trade, and if it comes to the point of making inquiries into compensation, I can assure him that it has never been any trouble to insurance companies to inquire into family details should there be a fatal accident. I can assure him when it comes to the question of dependency of the wife upon the husband, when there are other members of the family in the house, such as a son or a daughter who is working, the insurance companies can go into the most minute details. It is no trouble to them at all.

Mr. Peake: I do not want to extend that.

Mr. Taylor: I do not want to extend it either. All I am saying is that, so far as the insurance companies have been concerned, they have never worried. It has been a matter of saving what they would otherwise have had to pay to the widow in a fatal accident case. I am sure that


if the right hon. Gentleman is willing to consider this point there would be no hesitation on the part of the insurance companies and we would be doing something in legislation. While I know it is not the rule to legislate for hard cases, yet, at the same time, while that may not be the practice, it is our duty as far as possible to legislate for deserving cases.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Before asking permission to withdraw the Amendment, I would like to point out that we have drafted it so widely that the same children will have two claims, one in respect of the father, and another in respect of the mother. That is a serious argument against our Amendment. But it does not diminish the justice of our claim for a widow or a spinster, and I would ask the Under-Secretary to give attention to that question before the Report stage, to see whether anything can be done for that narrow section. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper, in the name of Mr. SLOAN:

In page 2, line 9, after "years," insert:
or a child over 15 years attending a secondary or technical school.

The Chairman: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment and that in the name of the Home Secretary—in page 2, line II at the end to insert:
Provided that a child who—

(i) has attained the age of fifteen years, and
(ii) was, when he attained that age, a child receiving full-time instruction in a school,

shall be treated for the purposes of paragraph (c) of this sub-section as if he did not attain that age until the date on which he ceases to be a child receiving full-time instruction as aforesaid or the thirty-first day of July next following the day on which he attains the age of sixteen years, whichever is the earlier date."—
were discussed together, so that we do not duplicate discussion.

Mr. Sloan: Do I understand that the Government are accepting my Amendment?

Mr. Peake: Perhaps I might shorten the Debate by saying that the Government have drafted an Amendment on this point, but perhaps in a better form than the Amendment proposed by the hon.

Member. In the circumstances, perhaps he will not move his Amendment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, after "child," to insert:
whether born before or after the accident.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. There is a new Clause, in my name, which covers more or less the same point. Would it be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss this Amendment and my new Clause together? My Clause is wider, but it contains the same principle, I think.

The Chairman: The hon. Member's new Clause would appear to be much wider. Perhaps some discussion might take place on the present Amendment which ought not to be repeated on the hon. Member's new Clause.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I submit that this is a narrower point, and there ought not to be a wide discussion on points very much outside it, which might prejudice its chances of being accepted. I hoped that you would rule, as a matter of expediency, Major Miner, that we should discuss the Amendment now, and come to the wider point later.

The Chairman: I think that the hon. Member had better deal with the Amendment now, but some of the arguments may be the same as those advanced by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), and I hope that it will not be necessary for the hon. Member for Oxford to repeat the arguments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards).

Mr. Edwards: The short point is this. Is a man who is married to terminate his normal family life when he sustains an accident? The Royal Warrant again, is in our favour on this point, in the case of a totally disabled man. It seems to me that the Under-Secretary has little argument to put against this. I cannot see any reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. Suppose that a man contracts pneumoconiosis, for instance. He may live for 10 or 20 years. Is it suggested that if his wife has a child more than nine months after he has been certified, he ought to be denied an allowance in respect of that child? It is treating men who become totally disabled as if they were criminals, as if they had incurred the displeasure of society. Where the children are born after the accident but the man dies subsequently,


the child ranks for an allowance; and if that applies when a man dies, surely it should apply when he does not die. This is one of the narrower points on which the Under-Secretary ought to give way.

Mr. Hogg: I should like to support the principle of this Amendment. The exact method by which it is appropriate to put in the principle may be a matter of dispute between my hon. Friend and me, but a very important moral principle is involved. Under the law as it stands, the expression "child," for the purposes of the children's allowances, includes only children conceived before the accident—that is, born before or less than nine months after the accident. That puts an intolerable burden upon the workman. It is not to be desired that he should cease to live with his wife, or that he should limit his parenthood in any way. It is true that the birth of a child after the accident, or at any rate after proceedings have arisen as a result of an accident, gives rise to administrative difficulties, which I have sought to cover in my own new Clause. But it seems to me intolerable that this Bill should say that a man who has children after an accident should know that he has them at his own expense. There are occasions when human principles must take precedence over administrative difficulties. As a Christian, I could not tolerate the Bill in its present form. I think it raises a very important religious and moral issue.

Mr. Tinker: I want to support this Amendment, because I have felt for some time that recognition should be given to the rights of disabled men. If children come along, it is very hard to say that they should have no allowances. The Bill would prevent all marital relationships, or would say that if a child comes there is no allowance for it. I say again that if we want children, more ought to be done to encourage people to have them. A man should not be made to feel that if he brings children into the world, his wife will have to go out to work, or something of that kind. On the broad moral issue, the Under-Secretary of State ought to consider the proposal.

Mr. Peake: The arguments in regard to this Amendment are almost exactly the same as the arguments in the previous Amendment relating to post-accident

marriage. Marriage and children go very well together, and it therefore falls into the same class of case as the question of marriage after the date of the accident. Hon. Members drew attention on the previous Amendment to the new condition imported into the Royal Warrant where the old rule that marriage after the injury, and children born more than nine months after the injury, were not recognised by the State for pension purposes, has been bridged in the one case of the man who is wholly disabled and virtually unemployable.
I promised on the previous Amendment that in connection with the long-term scheme the question of that class of case would be considered, and clearly I must give the same undertaking in respect of the matter of the children born more than nine months after the event of the accident. I think, however, that I should add this: Perhaps it is in the nature of repetition, but we are dealing with a temporary matter. We are going to have a long-term scheme very shortly, and the employers have always argued with great force that domestic circumstances of workmen are not their concern and they ought not to be asked to make payments varying according to domestic needs. The Government's view is that provision of allowances for children born before the accident might be justified in present circumstances in a temporary Measure and containing the national provision of children's allowances and a revised scheme of workmen's compensation. It would, however, be going too far to extend the provision at this moment to children born after the accident. I hope that with that explanation hon. Members will not press this Amendment but will be content with the assurance that, in connection with the long-term scheme, this point will be considered.

Mr. Tom Brown: Is not the right hon. Gentleman creating greater troubles for himself for the time when comprehensive measures come before the House?

Mr. Peake: I do not think so.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We started off the Debate in a very fiery way, and since we disposed of the first Amendment everything that could reasonably be done has been done. All the time we on this side are having the best of the Debate, and the Under-Secretary is making no effort


at all to answer the arguments. We are met with a stone wall. I feel in these circumstances that the Committee ought to exert itself against the attitude adopted by the Under-Secretary. Here is an Amendment from both sides of the Committee which is eminently reasonable and on the principle of which the Government have given a decision. The Committee ought to assert itself and divide on this Amendment unless we are given a better answer than the Under-Secretary has yet given. All the time he evades the argument and the challenge and says in effect, "Wait until the sweet by-and-by, and we will consider it." There is a limit to our patience, and I hope that the Committee will divide on this Amendment.

Mr. Hogg: I share the view of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) that the answer that has been given to the Amendment is not satisfactory. I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose to divide the Committee in its present state. I cannot accept the argument that there is necessarily relationship between post-accident marriage and post-accident children. I have always favoured compensation in the case of post-accident marriage, but the case in relation to post-accident children is infinitely more strong. A man could reasonably, if totally disabled, postpone a marriage, but if he is already married you are in effect saying to him in terms that the wife he has (already married shall no longer be a wife to him and no longer a mother to his children. I shall join the hon. Member in carrying the matter to a division if he decides to do so.

Dr. Morgan: Although I want this Bill very badly and have worked very hard for it, I shall vote against the Government on this Amendment. It is practically a declaration that the wife of a man disabled or injured by accident should be made sterile and should not have children. Why have the Government taken up such a bureaucratic and inhuman attitude, and why do they say that no matter what the arguments are they will make any excuse, that this is a temporary measure, rather than give a little concession which would at any rate show that they accepted the human point in the Bill?

Mr. Peake: I must say one more word, because the hon. Member seems to think that our attitude in resisting the Amend-

ment is unreasonable. For 25 years the State in all pensions schemes in respect of the last war and all Service pension schemes has refused to recognise the eligibility of children born more than nine months after the Warrant or injury for pension. It has been adopted by Governments of all political complexions ever since the last war. Hon. Members now desire to import this principle into a workmen's compensation scheme where the cost is not borne by the State but by the employers—

Dr. Morgan: By the consumers.

Mr. Peake: —and where the scheme itself is only going to last for another year or two at the outside and when a general State scheme of children's allowances is well known to be in contemplation. I really think that in these circumstances it would be unreasonable to import this new principle, which the State has not adopted to any general extent at all, into a workmen's compensation scheme when that scheme as we know it to-day will have disappeared for good and all in two or three years' time.

Mr. Tom Brown: I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he was prepared to accept the principle when the comprehensive Measure came before the House.

Mr. Bowles: I have sat through the whole of the Debate except the last ten minutes. I was not in the House of Commons in the old days when party struggles were on, but I can understand, having read carefully all the Debates, the great struggle the workers had to obtain any concession from the Conservative Party of the day. Now we have a coalition Government of Conservatives and Labour and I have come to the conclusion that such a coalition is more Conservative than a Government of Conservatives alone. Against this issue and the other issues which have been put forward, no reasonable argument whatsoever has been advanced and I welcome the spirit of some of my hon. Friends in wishing to divide the Committee on every possible occasion because that will at least give some publicity to the attitude adopted by the Government on this series of human matters.

Mr. Foster: I would like to support the Amendment. I remember some time ago a Debate on the trend of the population


in which speakers put forward suggestions, such as better feeding of children, family allowances and so on, which it was argued would lead to an increase in the birth rate. Here you have two men, one of whom may be injured a little late in life when he has four or five children. He will get the full benefit of the children's allowance because his children were born within nine months of the date of the accident. The other man may be injured the week, or even the day, following his marriage. In that case, if no children are born within nine months of the date of his accident no allowance is paid. What a paradoxical situation! The Under-Secretary gave as his reason for not accepting the Amendment the fact that the principle has not been accepted by the Government.

Mr. Peake: By any Government.

Mr. Foster: To-day the Government can make history by accepting the principle. What is wrong with accepting the principle? Are we always to act on the assumption that because previous Governments have not accepted a principle we desire to see adopted, now we cannot make progress? The Under-Secretary's answer may be a good Civil Service or Home Office reply, but it is not in keeping with humanitarian ideas. All the arguments which were put forward for family allowances could be put forward for this Amendment. I hope the Under-Secretary will reconsider the matter.

Mrs. Tate: I am appalled to think that the Government should refuse to accept this Amendment. No matter what compensation is paid to an injured man, he is never really compensated for the injury he receives. Is it to be seriously laid down that, if the man is injured, in addition to suffering for the rest of his life he is also to be deprived of having any more children?

Mr. Peake: There is nothing in the Bill, or the 1940 Bill, which stops anybody from having children.

Mrs. Tate: The Under-Secretary may say there is nothing to stop them having children but if they do they must have them at their own expense, when the man is unable any longer to earn a living. It is easy to say in a light and airy way that there is nothing to stop anybody having children. Expense stops them.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Lady does not seem to have borne in mind the fact that out of the total number of cases for workmen's compensation 92 per cent. are back at work during the first 13 weeks and that a large number of other cases are only partially disabled. If she was confining her argument to the man incapacitated for a long term, there would be something to be said for it.

Mrs. Tate: I thought we were legislating for hard cases. I know we cannot build legislation on hard cases but we want to protect such cases, in thinking of a Bill of this nature. While I was having a little sustenance a short while ago the Under-Secretary said, I think, that he had managed to satisfy me, as regards the position of women in this Bill. Well, I am not satisfied but, as this is an interim Measure, I am prepared to accept it. I am not prepared, however, to accept the position that the wife of an injured workman, whose child is born, say, two weeks after the nine months' period, after marriage, should receive no benefit. Nine months is an arbitrary period. It is possible for the period to be nine months and two weeks. I shall support the Amendment and divide against the Government if necessary.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I think the Committee is being rather hard on the Under-Secretary in view of the position which it has itself created. The Committee expects the whole structure of workmen's compensation to be so designed as to work in with the other social services. If that is the case, I do not see why hon. Members cannot understand the plea that it is cutting across all other services and pensions to make exceptions, however fair they may seem. The moral the Committee ought to draw from this incident and from the first Amendment, about which there was so much fuss, is that it is impossible to plan the workmen's compensation code so that it is interlocked with the other social services. Let us learn the lesson of this Debate, namely, that industrial accidents must be treated separately from other accidents, ordinary illness, unemployment and war pensions. Once the Committee admits that the code for industrial accidents is to be related to the code for other social services, there is no limit to the number of anomalies that will arise.

Mr. Buchanan: Two pleas are constantly put forward in this House. To one of them the Under-Secretary has just said, "This principle has never been accepted before and, therefore, we cannot accept it now." The hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has given an example of the answer to that. We had a claim for equal compensation. It was resisted in every way. Unemployment and health insurance, everything differentiated against the woman. The hon. Lady fought and the House passed equal compensation. Did the structure of the Government alter? No. All this talk about it not having been done before is nonsense. Every reform that has been asked for here to-day has been met with the answer that it must be worked in connection with a complete scheme. But the facts are that the Government have been forced, although maybe that is too harsh a word to use, to bring in a temporary Bill dealing with the worst class of cases. We on this side have not attempted to remodel workmen's compensation. All we have done is to select half-a-dozen of the harshest type of cases which call out for remedy. The Minister of Pensions was compelled to accept this principle, although it had never been done before. Previous Ministers had said it could not be done yet this Government accepted it. The Minister of Labour is going to direct men into the mines and to refuse them admittance to the Army. A man injured in the Army is going to get this. The poor man who, the Government say, must be a miner would be fortunate to be directed into the Army and injured, because he would come into this improvement. There is no answer to the case on humane or business grounds. The business ground calls out for it. A man does not want to be chargeable to the Poor Law. He wants this done on a businesslike footing. I trust that the Under-Secretary will accept this, the most meagre Amendment of all.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
It is clear that we cannot finish the Bill to-day. My right hon. Friend is not able to be here at this moment, but I think I should report to him what has taken place, though I cannot hold out any hope that the Amendment will be met, and we shall have to try to find

same time on another day to complete the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Here we are in the middle of discussing a certain Clause. The Debate has reached its end. The Committee is ready to take a Division and, in order to avoid a Division, the Under-Secretary moves to report Progress. I think it is not playing cricket with the Committee. Does it mean that the next time we meet we shall go through this whole procedure again? Is the time of the Committee to be wasted in this way? I ask that the Motion should be withdrawn and that we may finish at least this part of the discussion.

Mr. Tinker: I understand that the Under-Secretary is going to report to his chief the Debate that has taken place, and there may be a possibility of getting some concession. If we divide, we shall get defeated just the same.

Mr. Buchanan: If I thought the Under-Secretary was sincere, I think we ought to look at it again. If he really means what he has said, the best thing is to accept the Motion, but if it only means that he is breaking off because Members are not here in large numbers and he does not know how they will vote, that is not fair. I hope he is not meaning this as a method of getting over a difficult Parliamentary situation. I should like to be reassured on that.

Mr. Peake: Of course, it is clear that I am not using this as a device. If the Committee goes to a Division it will result in one side or the other winning. If the Government win, the matter is concluded. We have still many matters to deal with, and we cannot finish the Bill to-day. If, on the other hand, the Amendment is carried, it is clear from what the Home Secretary said earlier that the Bill itself is in peril. In the circumstances it is to everyone's advantage that the Debate shall be adjourned at this stage, so that my right hon. Friend may be apprised of the situation and, though I have no authority to make any concession—I would not, nor can I in view of the arguments which I have furnished, and which to me are very convincing—my right hon. Friend will have a chance of dealing with it when the Committee resumes on another day. In those circumstances I do not think there is any question of a device. It would be for the general advantage that


the Debate should now be adjourned and that we should resume on another occasion.

Mrs. Tate: With due respect to the Under-Secretary, I consider that the Committee is not being treated fairly. This is a tiny Amendment. When the structure of the Bill was under consideration we were told that it was impossible to accept a major Amendment. It is playing with the House of Commons to say that if this minute Amendment is accepted the Bill will be lost. It is beneath contempt to use an argument of that kind. We are being absolutely and utterly flouted. It is true that we cannot sit here all night, but do you mean to tell me that we cannot divide on this Amendment, or that the right hon. Gentleman intends to go to the Minister and come back and say the Amendment is going to be accepted? Of course not. If we adjourn now, it is certain that the Amendment will be defeated at a later date, and the Committee will have been fooled.

Mr. Hogg: I agree with a great part of what the hon. Lady has said. Certainly if this Amendment goes to a Division at a later stage I shall not hesitate to vote against the Government, but I think what the Under-Secretary has said is fair, that he wants to confer with his right hon. Friend, and it would be unfair to deny him the chance. I fully agree with the hon. Lady that it is deplorable that the

Under-Secretary should pretend that the Bill is in peril because of the Amendment.
The Amendment would give compensation to children born more than nine months after an accident. He himself in resisting it has said that it represented a minute proportion of cases. I was prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement earlier when he said the Bill was in peril upon a major issue, but to ask me to believe that this Amendment puts the Bill in peril puts a great strain upon my credulity, which has been strained sufficiently once or twice to-day.

Mr. Maxton: I want to support the Motion that the Committee should adjourn, but I should like an assurance from the Under-Secretary that if I do that I am not imperilling the Bill.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.